Re: [casper] Report of experience with KatADC
Hi All, I used 14.5 for a while and the only issue that I had was that registers in one of my designs kept getting disconnected from the rest of the design each time I opened up the model file. All other designs were fine. This forced me back to 14.3. Although I do plan to test out 14.6 soon. Wes Wesley New South African SKA Project +2721 506 7365 www.ska.ac.za On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Jack Hickish wrote: > Hi all, > > We were using 14.3 at the JBO workshop a few weeks ago -- partly because > of cautionary tales I heard about 14.4, and partly because of license > expiry date constraints (i.e. 14.3 was the latest version the spare Oxford > licenses supported). > > Cheers, > Jack > > On 1 Oct 2013 12:56, "Jason Manley" wrote: > >> Might be 14.5 works fine. I haven't tried it personally and I believe >> there were issues with 14.4. Andrew and Paul are also on 14.3. >> >> Jack, what were we using at the recent workshop? >> >> Jason >> >> On 01 Oct 2013, at 13:47 , Nimish Sane wrote: >> >> > Really? Why does the Wiki page mention 14.5? >> https://casper.berkeley.edu/wiki/MSSGE_Setup_with_Xilinx_14.5_and_Matlab_2012b >> > >> > Can someone please clarify? >> > >> > Thanks a lot, >> > >> > Nimish >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Jason Manley wrote: >> > > ...instead of 13.x, we are going for the latest 14.5. >> > >> > We're currently on 14.3 at SKA-SA for all our ROACH-2 work. I haven't >> tried 14.5 but I think Wesley tried 14.4 and ran into some issues...??? >> > >> > Jason >> > >> > >> >>
Re: [casper] Report of experience with KatADC
Hi all, We were using 14.3 at the JBO workshop a few weeks ago -- partly because of cautionary tales I heard about 14.4, and partly because of license expiry date constraints (i.e. 14.3 was the latest version the spare Oxford licenses supported). Cheers, Jack On 1 Oct 2013 12:56, "Jason Manley" wrote: > Might be 14.5 works fine. I haven't tried it personally and I believe > there were issues with 14.4. Andrew and Paul are also on 14.3. > > Jack, what were we using at the recent workshop? > > Jason > > On 01 Oct 2013, at 13:47 , Nimish Sane wrote: > > > Really? Why does the Wiki page mention 14.5? > https://casper.berkeley.edu/wiki/MSSGE_Setup_with_Xilinx_14.5_and_Matlab_2012b > > > > Can someone please clarify? > > > > Thanks a lot, > > > > Nimish > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Jason Manley wrote: > > > ...instead of 13.x, we are going for the latest 14.5. > > > > We're currently on 14.3 at SKA-SA for all our ROACH-2 work. I haven't > tried 14.5 but I think Wesley tried 14.4 and ran into some issues...??? > > > > Jason > > > > > >
Re: [casper] Report of experience with KatADC
Might be 14.5 works fine. I haven't tried it personally and I believe there were issues with 14.4. Andrew and Paul are also on 14.3. Jack, what were we using at the recent workshop? Jason On 01 Oct 2013, at 13:47 , Nimish Sane wrote: > Really? Why does the Wiki page mention 14.5? > https://casper.berkeley.edu/wiki/MSSGE_Setup_with_Xilinx_14.5_and_Matlab_2012b > > Can someone please clarify? > > Thanks a lot, > > Nimish > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Jason Manley wrote: > > ...instead of 13.x, we are going for the latest 14.5. > > We're currently on 14.3 at SKA-SA for all our ROACH-2 work. I haven't tried > 14.5 but I think Wesley tried 14.4 and ran into some issues...??? > > Jason > >
Re: [casper] Report of experience with KatADC
Really? Why does the Wiki page mention 14.5? https://casper.berkeley.edu/wiki/MSSGE_Setup_with_Xilinx_14.5_and_Matlab_2012b Can someone please clarify? Thanks a lot, Nimish On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Jason Manley wrote: > > ...instead of 13.x, we are going for the latest 14.5. > > We're currently on 14.3 at SKA-SA for all our ROACH-2 work. I haven't > tried 14.5 but I think Wesley tried 14.4 and ran into some issues...??? > > Jason > >
Re: [casper] Report of experience with KatADC
> ...instead of 13.x, we are going for the latest 14.5. We're currently on 14.3 at SKA-SA for all our ROACH-2 work. I haven't tried 14.5 but I think Wesley tried 14.4 and ran into some issues...??? Jason
Re: [casper] Report of experience with KatADC
hi laura,Nimish >From my own experience: - KatADC works fine with the Roach1 library platform (there is no glitches on my time domain data).I use an old ska-sa library(commited in june 2012). You need to make your KatADC glitch test under the Roach1 platform. the KATADC library issued under Roach1 is stable. It is better to qualify your KatADC with your Roach1. - KatADC doesn't works fine with the Roach2 library platform with the commit that I used in august 2013. The trouble comes from the second RF channel which is sometimes disable. The I2c register sometimes doesnt enable the second RF channel. and sometimes we need to try several times before seeing the 2nd channel enable. I used to see some spike also but I need to check again. During the casper 2013 workshop I explained it to Jason, and he told me that he will have a look in depth on it in few weeks. Thus an update of the KatADC under the Roach2 library is needed, may be it has been done. May be I'm wrong, and by the next week I'll have to check again what happens with the september2013 commit, and I'll let you know.. -From my design experience, I'll advice you to keep two development platform. one with the 11.4 xilinx + mtalab toolflow, and a new one with the 14.x xilinx + matlab toolflow. And also you need to keep your previous working library commited earlier. regards,
Re: [casper] Report of experience with KatADC
Nimish, Thanks. My colleagues are planning on doing exactly what you mentioned: programming ROACH2 KatADCs with the 11.5 tools we had used to previously and successfully program ROACH1. The advice I would give them after hearing this discussion is as follows: [*] build the design with their current toolflow, make sure it compiles, and then observe the internal KatADC snaps to see if the error Dale's error is recreated. [*] If so, update the mlib_devel to the latest (simple, fast, may work). [*] If error persists, upgrade to Xilinx 14.x toolflow which should yield success (extrapolated from the 13.x success presented in the initial email). Is that the correct summary? I can have them try and report back on this issue as to where they exited this "if/then" statement. --Laura PS - my sincere apologies, Dale, for calling you Gary, earlier, I am just jealous of nice, short last names that are human-readable On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Nimish Sane wrote: > Hi Laura, > > No. The one with 11.5 used an old commit > 1c2035ed9e4f4bcc98e9f08f2722d34dd4f10872 (Nov 12, 2012) from ska-sa. > > I believe Dave M used the latest one from casper-astro (waiting for his > answer). > > So, as a caveat to what Dale has mentioned in his email, the problem could > be between yellow blocks and not necessarily the toolflow, though I do not > know if yellow block has changed significantly. > > Thanks, > > Nimish > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Vertatschitsch, Laura E. < > lvertatschit...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote: > >> Gary, >> >> Can you confirm the same mlib_devel checkout was used for both compiles? >> >> --Laura >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Gary, Dale E. wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I am not sure how many out there are using or planning to use the KatADC >>> boards in their projects, but I thought I would report on our experience, >>> which contains a warning: Do not use Xilinx version 11.x for ROACH2 >>> development that includes KatADC. We started with that version, and did >>> not want to slow development by upgrading. However, snap blocks that >>> capture the ADC time-domain output showed numerous "glitches" like that >>> shown in the attached file. The top plot shows the histogram of the two >>> ADC channels on a single KatADC board, while the middle plot shows the >>> time-domain data. The green channel was behaving well, but the blue >>> channel shows many glitches, both positive and negative. The behavior >>> changes whenever the ROACHes are reloaded, so that which channels are >>> affected can change, and can be better or worse at different times. >>> >>> We created a test design to demonstrate the problem, compiled on 11.x, >>> and then asked Dave MacMahon to compile the same model again on Xilinx >>> system generator 13.3. We found that when the new bof file is loaded there >>> is no sign of the glitches. We are now upgrading to 14.5, and will report >>> our experience with that later. >>> >>> There may be other reasons not to use 11.x on ROACH2, but we did not see >>> any other problems, including earlier tests with iADC boards. It was only >>> when we began using the KatADCs that we saw these anomalies. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dale >>> >> >> >
Re: [casper] Report of experience with KatADC
Sounds reasonable. We persisted with 11.5 for ROACH2 so far, but we feel that it is high time we migrate to latest tools. So instead of 13.x, we are going for the latest 14.5. Others can comment if there are any red flags in using latest commit with 11.5. Thanks, Nimish On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Vertatschitsch, Laura E. < lvertatschit...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote: > Nimish, > > Thanks. My colleagues are planning on doing exactly what you mentioned: > programming ROACH2 KatADCs with the 11.5 tools we had used to previously > and successfully program ROACH1. > > The advice I would give them after hearing this discussion is as follows: > > [*] build the design with their current toolflow, make sure it compiles, > and then observe the internal KatADC snaps to see if the error Dale's error > is recreated. > > [*] If so, update the mlib_devel to the latest (simple, fast, may work). > > [*] If error persists, upgrade to Xilinx 14.x toolflow which should yield > success (extrapolated from the 13.x success presented in the initial email). > > Is that the correct summary? I can have them try and report back on this > issue as to where they exited this "if/then" statement. > > --Laura > > PS - my sincere apologies, Dale, for calling you Gary, earlier, I am just > jealous of nice, short last names that are human-readable > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Nimish Sane wrote: > >> Hi Laura, >> >> No. The one with 11.5 used an old commit >> 1c2035ed9e4f4bcc98e9f08f2722d34dd4f10872 (Nov 12, 2012) from ska-sa. >> >> I believe Dave M used the latest one from casper-astro (waiting for his >> answer). >> >> So, as a caveat to what Dale has mentioned in his email, the problem >> could be between yellow blocks and not necessarily the toolflow, though I >> do not know if yellow block has changed significantly. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Nimish >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Vertatschitsch, Laura E. < >> lvertatschit...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote: >> >>> Gary, >>> >>> Can you confirm the same mlib_devel checkout was used for both compiles? >>> >>> --Laura >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Gary, Dale E. wrote: >>> Hi All, I am not sure how many out there are using or planning to use the KatADC boards in their projects, but I thought I would report on our experience, which contains a warning: Do not use Xilinx version 11.x for ROACH2 development that includes KatADC. We started with that version, and did not want to slow development by upgrading. However, snap blocks that capture the ADC time-domain output showed numerous "glitches" like that shown in the attached file. The top plot shows the histogram of the two ADC channels on a single KatADC board, while the middle plot shows the time-domain data. The green channel was behaving well, but the blue channel shows many glitches, both positive and negative. The behavior changes whenever the ROACHes are reloaded, so that which channels are affected can change, and can be better or worse at different times. We created a test design to demonstrate the problem, compiled on 11.x, and then asked Dave MacMahon to compile the same model again on Xilinx system generator 13.3. We found that when the new bof file is loaded there is no sign of the glitches. We are now upgrading to 14.5, and will report our experience with that later. There may be other reasons not to use 11.x on ROACH2, but we did not see any other problems, including earlier tests with iADC boards. It was only when we began using the KatADCs that we saw these anomalies. Regards, Dale >>> >>> >> >
Re: [casper] Report of experience with KatADC
Hi Laura, No. The one with 11.5 used an old commit 1c2035ed9e4f4bcc98e9f08f2722d34dd4f10872 (Nov 12, 2012) from ska-sa. I believe Dave M used the latest one from casper-astro (waiting for his answer). So, as a caveat to what Dale has mentioned in his email, the problem could be between yellow blocks and not necessarily the toolflow, though I do not know if yellow block has changed significantly. Thanks, Nimish On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Vertatschitsch, Laura E. < lvertatschit...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote: > Gary, > > Can you confirm the same mlib_devel checkout was used for both compiles? > > --Laura > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Gary, Dale E. wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I am not sure how many out there are using or planning to use the KatADC >> boards in their projects, but I thought I would report on our experience, >> which contains a warning: Do not use Xilinx version 11.x for ROACH2 >> development that includes KatADC. We started with that version, and did >> not want to slow development by upgrading. However, snap blocks that >> capture the ADC time-domain output showed numerous "glitches" like that >> shown in the attached file. The top plot shows the histogram of the two >> ADC channels on a single KatADC board, while the middle plot shows the >> time-domain data. The green channel was behaving well, but the blue >> channel shows many glitches, both positive and negative. The behavior >> changes whenever the ROACHes are reloaded, so that which channels are >> affected can change, and can be better or worse at different times. >> >> We created a test design to demonstrate the problem, compiled on 11.x, >> and then asked Dave MacMahon to compile the same model again on Xilinx >> system generator 13.3. We found that when the new bof file is loaded there >> is no sign of the glitches. We are now upgrading to 14.5, and will report >> our experience with that later. >> >> There may be other reasons not to use 11.x on ROACH2, but we did not see >> any other problems, including earlier tests with iADC boards. It was only >> when we began using the KatADCs that we saw these anomalies. >> >> Regards, >> Dale >> > >
Re: [casper] Report of experience with KatADC
Gary, Can you confirm the same mlib_devel checkout was used for both compiles? --Laura On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Gary, Dale E. wrote: > Hi All, > > I am not sure how many out there are using or planning to use the KatADC > boards in their projects, but I thought I would report on our experience, > which contains a warning: Do not use Xilinx version 11.x for ROACH2 > development that includes KatADC. We started with that version, and did > not want to slow development by upgrading. However, snap blocks that > capture the ADC time-domain output showed numerous "glitches" like that > shown in the attached file. The top plot shows the histogram of the two > ADC channels on a single KatADC board, while the middle plot shows the > time-domain data. The green channel was behaving well, but the blue > channel shows many glitches, both positive and negative. The behavior > changes whenever the ROACHes are reloaded, so that which channels are > affected can change, and can be better or worse at different times. > > We created a test design to demonstrate the problem, compiled on 11.x, and > then asked Dave MacMahon to compile the same model again on Xilinx system > generator 13.3. We found that when the new bof file is loaded there is no > sign of the glitches. We are now upgrading to 14.5, and will report our > experience with that later. > > There may be other reasons not to use 11.x on ROACH2, but we did not see > any other problems, including earlier tests with iADC boards. It was only > when we began using the KatADCs that we saw these anomalies. > > Regards, > Dale >
