I wanted to loop through an array elements and later output them.
I don't think that the for loop is correct.
Could someone help with this, please ?
enter image description here
In VHDL, a for loop is a shorthand notation for creating parallel paths of logic.
In your example, the loop becomes a shift-by-1 index mapping assignment:
r_array(1) <= myArray1(0);
r_array(2) <= myArray1(1);
r_array(3) <= myArray1(2);
r_array(4) <= myArray1(3);
r_array(5) <= myArray1(4);
r_array(6) <= myArray1(5);
r_array(7) <= myArray1(6);
Since r_array is scalar type integer type and not a vector, this won't work as is.
Try using r_array as an index counter, then on each rising edge clock the next index of myArray will be assigned and our array index counter will increment by 1 (or wrap over back 0).
if rising_edge(i_CE1Hz) then
if r_array <= 7 then
r_array <= r_array + 1;
else
r_array <= 0;
end if;
o_element <= myArray(r_array); -- new output signal
end if;
I'm currently working on writing a simple counter in VHDL, trying to genericize it as much as possible. Ideally I end up with a counter that can pause, count up/down, and take just two integer (min, max) values to determine the appropriate bus widths.
As far as I can tell, in order to get an integer of a given range, I just need to delcare
VARIABLE cnt: INTEGER RANGE min TO max := 0
Where min and max are defined as generics (both integers) in the entity. My understanding of this is that if min is 0, max is 5, for example, it will create an integer variable of 3 bits.
My problem is that I actually want to output this integer. So, naturally, I write
counterOut : OUT INTEGER RANGE min TO max
But this does not appear to be doing what I need. I'm generating a schematic block in Quartus Prime from this, and it creates a bus output from [min...max]. For example, if min = 0, max = 65, it outputs a 66 bit bus. Instead of the seven bit bus it should.
If I restricted the counter to unsigned values I might be able to just math out the output bus size, but I'd like to keep this as flexible as possible, and of course I'd like to know what I'm actually doing wrong and how to do it properly.
TL;DR: I want a VHDL entity to take generic min,max values, and generate an integer output bus of the required width to hold the range of values. How do?
If it matters, I'm using Quartus Prime Lite Edition V20.1.0 at the moment.
Note: I know I can use STD_LOGIC_VECTOR instead, but it is going to simulate significantly slower and is less easy to use than the integer type as far as I have read. I can provide more of my code if necessary, but it's really this one line that's the problem as far as I can tell.
I originally posted this on Stackexchange, but I think Stackoverflow might be a better place since it's more of a programming than a hardware problem.
EDIT: Complete code shown below
LIBRARY ieee;
USE ieee.std_logic_1164.all;
USE ieee.numeric_std.all;
USE ieee.std_logic_signed.all;
ENTITY Counter IS
GENERIC (modulo : INTEGER := 32;
min : INTEGER := 0;
max : INTEGER := 64);
PORT( pause : IN STD_LOGIC;
direction : IN STD_LOGIC; -- 1 is up, 0 is down
clk : IN STD_LOGIC;
counterOut : OUT INTEGER RANGE min TO max --RANGE 0 TO 32 -- THIS line is the one generating an incorrect output bus width
);
END ENTITY Counter;
-- or entity
ARCHITECTURE CounterArch OF Counter IS
BEGIN
PROCESS(direction, pause, clk)
VARIABLE cnt : INTEGER RANGE min TO max := 0;
VARIABLE dir : INTEGER;
BEGIN
IF direction = '1' THEN
dir := 1;
ELSE
dir := -1;
END IF;
IF clk'EVENT AND clk = '1' THEN
IF pause = '0'THEN
IF (cnt = modulo AND direction = '1') THEN
cnt := min; -- If we're counting up and hit modulo, reset to min value.
ELSIF (cnt = min AND direction = '0') THEN
cnt := modulo; --Counting down hit 0, go back to modulo.
ELSE
cnt := cnt + dir;
END IF;
END IF;
END IF;
counterOut <= cnt;
END PROCESS;
END ARCHITECTURE CounterArch;
I want to copy the Average Variable value to the specific location of 2d Array. For this code it is array_new_signal11(3,2).
Can anyone guide me how can I do this? This code gives me error while simulation.
architecture Behavioral of Correction is
type array_new is array (0 to 4, 0 to 4) of integer;
signal array_new_signal: array_new;
begin
array_new_signal11 <= ((1,2,3,4,5),
(4,5,6,7,8),
(7,8,9,0,1),
(1,3,6,5,9),
(2,3,5,4,5));
Process(kelvin)
variable Sum1: integer:= 0;
Variable Sum2: integer:= 0;
Variable Total_Sum: integer:= 0;
Variable Average: integer:= 0;
begin
for Row in 0 to 4 loop
for Column in 0 to 4 loop
if(Row = 1 and Column = 1) then
for Column in 1 to 3 loop
sum1 := array_new_signal11(Row, Column) + Sum1;
end loop;
end if;
if(Row = 2 and Column = 1) then
for Column in 1 to 3 loop
sum2 := array_new_signal11(Row, Column) + Sum2;
end loop;
end if;
end loop;
end loop;
Total_Sum := Sum1 + Sum2;
Average := Total_Sum / 8;
**array_new_signal11(3,2) <= Average;**
end Process;
end Behavioral;
Constructing a Minimal, Complete and Verifiable example from the question:
entity correction is
end correction;
architecture behavioral of correction is
type array_new is array (0 to 4, 0 to 4) of integer;
signal array_new_signal11: array_new := ((1,2,3,4,5),
(4,5,6,7,8),
(7,8,9,0,1),
(1,3,6,5,9),
(2,3,5,4,5));
signal kelvin: boolean;
begin
-- array_new_signal11 <= ((1,2,3,4,5),
-- (4,5,6,7,8),
-- (7,8,9,0,1),
-- (1,3,6,5,9),
-- (2,3,5,4,5));
process (kelvin)
variable sum1: integer:= 0;
variable sum2: integer:= 0;
variable total_sum: integer:= 0;
variable average: integer:= 0;
begin
for row in 0 to 4 loop
for column in 0 to 4 loop
if row = 1 and column = 1 then
for column in 1 to 3 loop
sum1 := array_new_signal11(row, column) + sum1;
end loop;
end if;
if row = 2 and column = 1 then
for column in 1 to 3 loop
sum2 := array_new_signal11(row, column) + sum2;
end loop;
end if;
end loop;
end loop;
total_sum := sum1 + sum2;
average := total_sum / 8;
report "sum1 = " & integer'image(sum1) & ", " &
"sum2 = " & integer'image(sum2) & ", " &
"average = " & integer'image(average);
array_new_signal11(3,2) <= average;
end process;
MONITOR_PROCESS:
process
begin
wait on array_new_signal11;
for row in 0 to 4 loop
report "row" & integer'image(row) & " = " &
integer'image(array_new_signal11(row,0)) & ", " &
integer'image(array_new_signal11(row,1)) & ", " &
integer'image(array_new_signal11(row,2)) & ", " &
integer'image(array_new_signal11(row,3)) & ", " &
integer'image(array_new_signal11(row,4));
end loop;
end process;
end behavioral;
We see the report statements tell us the average and report the new array values.
We see the Row 3 Column 2 was initialized to 6 and is now 4:
ghdl -a correction.vhdl
ghdl -e correction
ghdl -r correction
correction.vhdl:42:7:#0ms:(report note): sum1 = 18, sum2 = 17, average = 4
correction.vhdl:52:13:#0ms:(report note): row0 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
correction.vhdl:52:13:#0ms:(report note): row1 = 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
correction.vhdl:52:13:#0ms:(report note): row2 = 7, 8, 9, 0, 1
correction.vhdl:52:13:#0ms:(report note): row3 = 1, 3, 4, 5, 9
correction.vhdl:52:13:#0ms:(report note): row4 = 2, 3, 5, 4, 5
as specified by the value of average.
As Renaud Pacalet notes you have two different processes driving array_new_signal11, which is not legal in VHDL, as it's element type integer is not a resolved data type.
The solution is to initialize the array in this case where it's declared.
Otherwise every assignment to an element of array signal must be in the same process. The concurrent signal assignment you had will be elaborated to an equivalent process statement and generate an error when elaborated as it was originally shown:
ghdl -r correction
for signal: .correction(behavioral).array_new_signal11(3,2)
./correction:error: several sources for unresolved signal
./correction:error: error during elaboration
(For the ghdl simulator part of elaboration (which consists of linking and loading) is done when invoking simulation (the -r command, the loading part, where the design network is created)).
Renaud Pacalet suggests assigning the array value inside the process, but without an intervening wait statement the values are not available for subsequent use in the same simulation cycle. The new signal values are not available in the same simulation cycle they are assigned.
Each signal assignment schedules a waveform update and only one entry for a particular simulation time is available. In this case it would guarantee array(3, 2) would be the average of eight values of integer'left (which would be incorrect, you should get errors causing simulation to end during the accumulation of sum1 in the unlabelled 3rd loop statement first loop iteration).
And that tells us you need the array initialized before being read.
The only reason the above example succeeds is that there are no array elements when added together won't violate the value range of type integer with the values you specified.
You can get around this sort of thing by using binary array equivalents of integers and paying attention to the needed accuracy.
There are several morals to this story. First, VHDL isn't a programming language, second it's strongly typed and third signals assignment values are never visible in the simulation cycle they are made in.
Note that kelvin has been added as boolean signal to trigger execution of the process once without changing it.
You are trying to drive the array_new_signal11 signal from two different processes. Yes, your first concurrent signal assignment:
array_new_signal11 <= ((1,2,3,4,5),
(4,5,6,7,8),
(7,8,9,0,1),
(1,3,6,5,9),
(2,3,5,4,5));
is a shorthand for a process. It models a hardware driver that continuously imposes these values to your array signal (which is just a bunch of wires, at the end).
Your second process also tries to impose a value to one cell of your array (cell array_new_signal11(3,2)). In electrical engineering, this situation is called a short-circuit: what would you expect when the two drivers disagree? This is also the reason why your simulator refuses this: it does not know what to do with this signal.
Solution: drive this signal from one single process:
process(kelvin)
...
begin
array_new_signal11 <= (
(1,2,3,4,5),
(4,5,6,7,8),
...
for Row in 0 to 4 loop
...
end process;
Notes:
Average being a variable you should have another error on:
Average <= Total_Sum / 8;
which should be:
Average := Total_Sum / 8;
You are using the same loop index (Column) in two nested loops. Not sure what you are trying to do but this is not very safe.
Even with my suggestion to fix your error you will hit another problem: the array_new_signal11 is both an input (you read it) and an output (you assign it) of your process. It should thus also be listed in the sensitivity list. In electrical engineering this is called a combinatorial loop and is usually highly undesirable, except if you want to create an oscillator or a kind of random generator.
Your process is sensitive to signal Kelvin but does not use it. Strange situation. Do you have a clear idea of what hardware you are trying to model?
You probably believe that your process variables are re-initialized to 0 each time the process resumes (that is, each time Kelvin changes). This is not the case: they retain the last value they were assigned. Probably not what you want. You should initialize them at the beginning of your process body.
Description:
I want to write vhdl code that finds the largest integer in the array A which is an array of 20 integers.
Question:
what should my algorithm look like, to input where the sequential statements are?
my vhdl code:
highnum: for i in 0 to 19 loop
i = 0;
i < 20;
i<= i + 1;
end loop highnum;
This does not need to be synthesizable but I dont know how to form this for loop a detailed example explaining how to would be appreciated.
Simply translating the C loop to VHDL, inside a VHDL clocked process, will work AND be synthesisable. It will generate a LOT of hardware because it has to generate the output in a single clock cycle, but that doesn't matter if you are just simulating it.
If that is too much hardware, then you have to implement it as a state machine with at least two states, Idle and Calculating, so that it performs only one loop iteration per clock cycle while Calculating, and returns to the Idle state when done.
First of all you should know how have you defined the array in vhdl.
Let me define an array for you.
type array_of_integer array(19 downto 0) of integer;
signal A : array_of_integer :=(others => 0);
signal max : integer;
-- Now above is the array in vhdl of integers all are initialized to value 0.
A(0) <= 1;
A(1) <= 2;
--
--
A(19)<= 19;
-- Now the for loop for calculating maximum
max <= A(0);
for i in 0 to 19 loop
if (A(i) > max) then
max <= A(i);
end if;
end loop;
-- Now If you have problems in understating that where to put which part of code .. in a ----vhdl entity format .. i.e process, ports, etc... you can reply !
Can someone please help me with the following:
Design a digital circuit, using VHDL, to keep track of time in the form of HH:MM:SS. The circuit should produce 6 separate four bit digital outputs (2 four bit outputs for the HH, 2 for the MM, 2 for the SS). The HH can just be a 2 digit number in the range 00 to 99 i.e. it’s not a clock, it just a counter for hours even though 99 hour tapes don’t exist. The time is to be displayed on the 6 right most 7 segment displays of the DE2. You have already designed a 7 segment decoder and driver as part of a previous lab, so that can be used to convert each 4 bit output into a 7 bit signal for each the 7-segment display. Don’t forget to set up the pin planer for these display (and all other signals)
The circuit should have the following single bit inputs: A Clock, an increment, a decrement and a reset. The increment/decrement inputs should cause the tape counter to add or subtract 1 second from the tape time on the next rising edge of the clock signal. If neither the increment or decrement inputs are present, the tape counter does not change. The reset is synchronous to the clock (to avoid glitches accidentally resetting it). The increment and decrement signals are all active high signals (i.e. a logic 1), the reset is active low (logic 0).
You tape counter should handle full hour, minute and second roll over, e.g. if the counter is showing 9:59:59, then the next increment should make it display 10:00:00 and vice versa when decrement is present.
Rather than solving your homework, I'd like to give you an idea. Most designers will tend to implement this clock using digit-by-digit rollover (some digits will rollover from 9-0, others from 5-0). I'd like to propose someting different.
The overall idea is: keep your time value in seconds as an integer. This will greatly facilitate the tasks of incrementing and decrementing. Then, you simply implement a conversion function that returns the number of hours, minutes, and seconds, given an integer number of seconds.
Your clock entity would look like this:
library ieee;
use ieee.std_logic_1164.all;
use work.clock_pkg.all;
entity clock is
port (
clock: in std_logic;
n_reset: in std_logic;
increment: in std_logic;
decrement: in std_logic;
hours: out natural range 0 to 99;
minutes: out natural range 0 to 59;
seconds: out natural range 0 to 59
);
end;
architecture rtl of clock is
signal time_in_seconds: natural range 0 to 359999;
begin
process (clock, n_reset) begin
if rising_edge(clock) then
if n_reset = '0' then
time_in_seconds <= 0;
elsif increment then
time_in_seconds <= time_in_seconds + 1;
elsif decrement then
time_in_seconds <= time_in_seconds - 1;
end if;
end if;
end process;
process (time_in_seconds) begin
(hours, minutes, seconds) <= seconds_to_time_type(time_in_seconds);
end process;
end;
As you can imagine, the workhorse of this solution is the seconds_to_time_type() function. You could implement it like this:
package clock_pkg is
type time_type is record
hours: natural range 0 to 99;
minutes, seconds: natural range 0 to 59;
end record;
function seconds_to_time_type(seconds: in natural) return time_type;
end;
package body clock_pkg is
function seconds_to_time_type(seconds: in natural) return time_type is
variable hh: natural range 0 to 99;
variable mm: natural range 0 to 119;
variable ss: natural range 0 to 119;
begin
hh := seconds / 3600;
mm := (seconds mod 3600) / 60;
ss := (seconds mod 3600) mod 60;
return (hh, mm, ss);
end;
end;
Now you have an entity that outputs separate integer values for hours, minutes, and seconds. Converting those values from integers to BCD, and showing those values on the displays is left as an exercise to the reader.
The typical way of implementing a counting clock is using binary coded decimal (BCD), where each digit consists of a separate n-bit counter, with a range as needed.
For example, in order to count seconds (from 0-59), you could use something like the following code:
process(clk, reset) begin
if(reset='1') then
second_tens <= (others=>'0');
second_ones <= (others=>'0');
elsif(rising_edge(clk)) then
if(count_en='1') then
if(second_ones = 9) then
second_ones <= (others=>'0');
if(second_tens = 5) then
second_tens <= (others=>'0');
-- Count up minutes.
else
second_tens <= second_tens + 1;
end if;
else
second_ones <= second_ones + 1;
end if;
end if;
end if;
end process;
Minutes and hours can be counted analogously.
You have skipped a step. You are trying to think about code with just a worded problem statement. First step is to design the hardware by drawing a block diagram. Break the problem down into pieces.
Initial partitioning might be Seconds, Minutes, and Hours. If you are counting in BCD, it you may wish to partition it further digit by digit. Work out what your hardware is supposed to do. Draw a picture. Write code that describes what is in the picture.
At the end of the day, your RTL block diagram is your HDL flow chart.