UPGRADE YOUR BROWSER

We have detected your current browser version is not the latest one. Xilinx.com uses the latest web technologies to bring you the best online experience possible. Please upgrade to a Xilinx.com supported browser:Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer 11, Safari. Thank you!

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Visitor dtonn
Visitor
481 Views
Registered: ‎05-22-2014

Zynq-7020 BUFMR Min Period Violation

Jump to solution

I'm using a Zynq-7020 (xc7z020clg484-1), and I'm trying to use a BUFMR to forward a 500 MHz clock signal from an MMCM in one bank to a BUFIO in an adjacent bank.  After routing, I'm getting a timing violation on the BUFMR.  Specifically, it's a Pulse Width (Min Period) violation.  Vivado (2017.4) says the minimum required period is 2.155 ns, which translates to 464 MHz. 

CaptureTemp.JPG

According to the Data Sheet (DS187 2018-07-02), "The maximum input frequency to the BUFR and BUFMR is the BUFIO Fmax frequency."  For -1 speed grade, Fmax_bufio is 600 MHz;  however, Fmax_bufh is 464 MHz, and Fmax_bufg is 464 MHz.  

So my question is, which is the correct Fmax for a BUFMR?  The Datasheet that says the BUFMR Fmax should be same as BUFIO (600 MHz), or Vivado (2017.4) which says Fmax is same as a BUFG/BUFH (464 MHz)?

0 Kudos
1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
Xilinx Employee
Xilinx Employee
211 Views
Registered: ‎07-16-2008

回复: Zynq-7020 BUFMR Min Period Violation

Jump to solution

The documentation is correct. There has been similar speed file issues for different architecture like Artix-7. A CR has been filed to request speed file update.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget to reply, kudo, and accept as solution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

View solution in original post

8 Replies
Visitor dtonn
Visitor
479 Views
Registered: ‎05-22-2014

Re: Zynq-7020 BUFMR Min Period Violation

Jump to solution

[edit: deleted after editing original post]

0 Kudos
Visitor dtonn
Visitor
473 Views
Registered: ‎05-22-2014

Re: Zynq-7020 BUFMR Min Period Violation

Jump to solution

[edit: deleted after editing original post]

0 Kudos
Contributor
Contributor
315 Views
Registered: ‎04-19-2016

Re: Zynq-7020 BUFMR Min Period Violation

Jump to solution

I'm having exactly the same issue on a 7014 with vivado 2019.1. Anybody know the answer?

0 Kudos
Xilinx Employee
Xilinx Employee
269 Views
Registered: ‎07-16-2008

回复: Zynq-7020 BUFMR Min Period Violation

Jump to solution

Looks to be a speed file issue. The speed file value doesn't match the documentation.

I'll file a CR to dev team.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget to reply, kudo, and accept as solution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Kudos
Contributor
Contributor
255 Views
Registered: ‎04-19-2016

回复: Zynq-7020 BUFMR Min Period Violation

Jump to solution

Thanks.

Is there a way to disable the pulse width check? set_false_path doesn't seem to work. Or a way to edit the 'speed file'?

0 Kudos
Xilinx Employee
Xilinx Employee
248 Views
Registered: ‎05-14-2008

回复: Zynq-7020 BUFMR Min Period Violation

Jump to solution

To disable the pulse width check on this pin also disables other timing check related it, which is not recommended.

You can just ignore this false check on this pin.

-vivian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t forget to reply, kudo, and accept as solution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
如果提供的信息能解决您的问题,请标记为“接受为解决方案”。
如果您认为帖子有帮助,请点击“奖励”。谢谢!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Kudos
Visitor dtonn
Visitor
236 Views
Registered: ‎05-22-2014

回复: Zynq-7020 BUFMR Min Period Violation

Jump to solution

Can you confirm that the documentation is indeed correct? Or could it be a documentation issue?

Before ignoring a timing violation like this, it would be important to have a definitive statement from Xilinx.  "Looks to be a speed file issue" probably wouldn't cut it as the basis for ignoring a timing violation if it ultimately resulted in a failure in our product.

Xilinx Employee
Xilinx Employee
212 Views
Registered: ‎07-16-2008

回复: Zynq-7020 BUFMR Min Period Violation

Jump to solution

The documentation is correct. There has been similar speed file issues for different architecture like Artix-7. A CR has been filed to request speed file update.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget to reply, kudo, and accept as solution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

View solution in original post