Continue to Site

Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Register Log in

Using high impedance state with Verilog register

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SamV

Newbie level 6
Newbie level 6
Joined
Apr 5, 2014
Messages
12
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1
Activity points
141
Hi All,

Today I thought I was clever by using a high impedance state in verilog. It doesn't work when I simulate it. Below is effectively what I was trying to do. Based on the simulation it seems that the if statement in the second always block which should check if the register set has a value of 1'bz doesn't work even though the value in the register is 1'bz. Is this what I should expect? If so, is there a way of doing this?

Thanks,
Sam
Code Verilog - [expand]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

always @(a or b or c)
 
begin
 
if(a|b|c)begin
if(a == 1'b1) 
set <= 1'b1;
else if (b == 1'b1)
set <= 1'b0;
else if (c == 1'b1)
set <= 1'bz;
end
 
end
 
 
 
always @(posedge clk)
 
begin
 
if(set == 1'b1)
x <= 1'b1;
else if(set == 1'b0)
y <= 1'b1;
else if(set == 1'bz) 
q <= 1'b1;
end
 
Last edited by a moderator:

From the LRM IEEE Std 1800-2012 11.4.5 Equality operators:
Capture.JPG

which means the result is always false as the compare fails.

The equality operator you want to use is === or !===:
Capture.JPG


More importantly this type of code is NOT synthesizable, if this is used only in a testbench that's okay as you may actually need to check for a Z value on some pin.
 
The only part of FPGA that may go to high impedance are I/O pins.

Same thing happen with 'u', 'x'. FPGA cannot set any internal component to 'x','z' or 'u', only to '0' and '1'.

Read the datasheet/user manuals of the FPGA you are using, there is a lot of interesting information there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamV

    S

    SamV

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
pbernardi said:
The only part of FPGA that may go to high impedance are I/O pins.

Same thing happen with 'u', 'x'. FPGA cannot set any internal component to 'x','z' or 'u', only to '0' and '1'.

Read the datasheet/user manuals of the FPGA you are using, there is a lot of interesting information there.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply! This is basically what I thought I would here. I've worked with High impedance states for i2c ...
 

ads-ee said:
From the LRM IEEE Std 1800-2012 11.4.5 Equality operators:
View attachment 114821

which means the result is always false as the compare fails.

The equality operator you want to use is === or !===:
View attachment 114822


More importantly this type of code is NOT synthesizable, if this is used only in a testbench that's okay as you may actually need to check for a Z value on some pin.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? I think it's synthesizable for sure. I've actually never seen the {3{=}} operator before in any of the online references. I'm using verilog 2001 I believe. I've read people talking about how the initial keyword is not synthesizable before but it definitely is is many Xilinx FPGA's

- - - Updated - - -

ads-ee said:
From the LRM IEEE Std 1800-2012 11.4.5 Equality operators:
View attachment 114821

which means the result is always false as the compare fails.

The equality operator you want to use is === or !===:
View attachment 114822


More importantly this type of code is NOT synthesizable, if this is used only in a testbench that's okay as you may actually need to check for a Z value on some pin.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see what you are saying I think. Correct me if I'm wrong please. The case equality operator === is used for comparisons when using values other than 0 and 1, like x or z. The case equality operator === is not synthesizable. Thanks!
 

You can't physically make hardware (synthesis) that can compare for X, that means both 0 or 1 are okay, basically the hardware generated is don't care so ends up being removed.

I really dislike comparisons done using don't care values. If you have a don't care condition e.g. address decoding.
Code Verilog - [expand]
1
2
3
4
5

// using a don't care condition on the address bits
assign decoded_addr = (ADDR === 16'b0001_0000_000X_XXXX) ? 1'b1 : 1'b0;
 
// I think its better to explicitly define the address range you are using.
assign decoded_addr = (ADDR[15:5] == 11'h080) ? 1'b1 : 1'b0;


I also think long binary assignments are unreadable.
 

ads-ee said: 
Code Verilog - [expand]
1
2

// using a don't care condition on the address bits
assign decoded_addr = (ADDR === 16'b0001_0000_000X_XXXX) ? 1'b1 : 1'b0;
Click to expand...

I don't know Verilog well enough to say if the code above is OK for synthesis, but direct compare with 'X' (unknown) or '-' (don't care) is not ok for synthesis in VHDL.
In VHDL, only an 'X' will match an 'X' and a '-' will only match a '-' in a normal compare, so it is only useful in a test bench.
To use "don't care" in a synthesizeable compare, you should use the "std_match" function (which also is my nickname on Edaboard!).
This is the VHDL code that corresponds to the intention of the Verilog code above:
Code VHDL - [expand]
1

decoded_addr <= std_match(ADDR, "00010000000-----");
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top