Group items tagged

High Level Synthesis Architectural Optimization Basics In part 1 of this article we introduced basic filter bank theory and used the Synplify DSP High Level Synthesis (HLS) tool to implement an example filter bank into three alternative architectures. In part 2 we dive deeper into these three architectures to better understand how these filters work. We will also examine the HLS optimizations we applied and the resulting benefits. Example Filter Bank Review Before we proceed, let's quickly review our filter bank example. Our example, shown in Figure 1, is a size 16 DFT filter bank. The color scheme shows the sample rate change where a 16 MHz input sample rate (red) has been chosen and the output sample rate is downsampled by 16 (green).

The first textbook of its kind, Programming Massively Parallel Processors: A Hands-on Approach launches today, authored by Dr. David B. Kirk, NVIDIA Fellow and former chief scientist, and Dr. Wen-mei Hwu, who serves at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as Chair of Electrical and Computer Engineering in the Coordinated Science Laboratory, co-director of the Universal Parallel Computing Research Center and principal investigator of the CUDA Center of Excellence. The textbook, which is 256 pages, is the first aimed at teaching advanced students and professionals the basic concepts of parallel programming and GPU architectures. Published by Morgan Kaufmann, it explores various techniques for constructing parallel programs and reviews numerous case studies. With conventional CPU-based computing no longer scaling in performance and the world’s computational challenges increasing in complexity, the need for massively parallel processing has never been greater. GPUs have hundreds of cores capable of delivering transformative performance increases across a wide range of computational challenges. The rise of these multi-core architectures has raised the need to teach advanced programmers a new and essential skill: how to program massively parallel processors.

You just built a breadboard of your expert design. You did all the simulations needed before going to layout, and reviewed the manufacturer's suggested techniques for a good thermal design for the particular package chosen. You even did your due diligence in going through the initial thermal analysis equations on paper to be sure not to exceed IC junction temperatures with a comfortable margin. But wait, you turn on the power and the IC is pretty hot to the touch. You are uncomfortable with this (not to mention the concern of your thermal experts and reliability people). Now what do you do?

Anyone can bake a cake, but while some chefs bake dry, uninspired bricks of dough, there are other chefs who make cakes we would die for. The ingredients may be the same, but the outcomes are so very different. This is also the case between average electronic products and world-class, market-changing products. One of the most recent technical sensations is the capacitive touch screen. But what makes some touch screen-based products amazing, while others get such poor reviews?

Have you ever written code that behaves correctly under a simulator only to have intermittent failures in the field? Or maybe your code no longer functions properly when you compile with a newer version of your tool chain. You review your test bench and verify 100 percent complete test coverage and that all tests have passed with no errors--yet the problem stubbornly remains. While designers understandably place great emphasis on coding and simulation, they often have only a nodding acquaintance with the internal workings of the silicon within an FPGA. As a result, incorrect logic synthesis and timing problems, rather than logic errors, are the cause of most logic failures. But writing FPGA code that creates predictable, reliable logic is simple if designers take the right steps. In FPGA design, logic synthesis and related timing closure occur during compilation. And many things, including I/O cell structure, asynchronous logic and timing constraints, can have a big impact on the compilation process, varying results with each pass through the tool chain. Let's take a closer look at ways to eliminate these variances to better and more quickly achieve timing closure.