- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I have a question about the RWDS timing during the CA interval where simulation disagrees with the datasheet.
The simulation shows a HyperRAM write cycle where a refresh collision has occurred. RWDS changes in the middle of the CA interval signaling 2x latency. The datasheet only shows RWDS valid on CS# low.
If it is important to know when RWDS should be sampled to guarantee proper latency.
Infineon S27KS0642 1.8V 64Mb 200MHz
S27KS0642GABHI020
Clock is 125MHz. Initial latency set to 5. Variable latency enabled
Infineon memory model with the correct `define selected
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @GeFu_3059156 ,
I apologize for the delay in response.
Please find the updated model with logic bug fixed. Please review and let me know if it solves the issue.
Thanks,
Shubham
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @GeFu_3059156,
Could you please clarify significance of the data packets present at the starting on Data line?
Could you please confirm RWDS in Test bench is not high at any instant?
Could you please provide the write timing parameters?
Thanks,
Shubham
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Thank you.
Line 1 is just a system clock for reference. 125MHz
1. The data at the leading edge of the diagram is finishing up a read cycle. You can see the final CK and CS# going high.
2. I can confirm that the memory and not the FPGA is driving RWDS in the timing diagram with the exception of the trailing edge of the diagram where the FPGA drives RWDS low (unmasked) as part of the write cycle.
3. Timing parameters. Please let me know what you are looking for.
CK# is 125MHz. Initial latency set to 5 in the control register. Variable latency enable in the control register. Simulation has verified reading and write to memory and control registers correctly with specified latencies.
In my experiments, I have added extra clock cycles to CS# high,width, and low timing to see if it affects when RWDS changes state.
These refresh collisions happen very infrequently. I find them by watching refresh signals internal to the HyperRAM model. My goal is to verify that the FPGA handles variable latency correctly.
Based on my experiments, RWDS low Z follows CS# falling but RWDS variable latency indication follows CK.
I can move the FPGA's RWDS sample point but the datasheet does not dimension this position .
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @GeFu_3059156 ,
I apologize for the delay in response.
we will fix the model and released the updated version by next Friday.
Thanks,
Shubham
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @GeFu_30591563059156,
Thanks for pointing out the issue. We reviewed the model and was able to replicate the issue. Please find the updated model with logic bug fixed. Please review and let me know if it solves the issue which you have seen in the earlier version of model.
Please find the attached model with this response.
Thanks,
Shubham
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I have incorporated the new simulation model into my testbench and see the same RWDS anomaly where simulation differs from the datasheet.
The datasheets shows RWDS status being valid on the falling edge of CS. The simulation (read cycle shown) shows RWDS during refresh collision changing state on the rising edge of the second clock pulse (or thereabouts).
It is important to my implementation that RWDS is sampled at the correct time to handle the extended refresh.
So when is RWDS on refresh collision supposed to be valid and when should the memory controller sample RWDS?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @GeFu_3059156 ,
I apologize for the delay in response.
Please find the updated model with logic bug fixed. Please review and let me know if it solves the issue.
Thanks,
Shubham