I have met some troubles while simulating design that contains comb-loop. Firrtl throws exception like
"No valid linearization for cyclic graph"
while verilator backend goes normal with warnings.
Is it possible to simulate such design with firrtl backend?
And can we apply --no-check-comb-loops not for all design but for some part of it while elaborating?
Example code here:
import chisel3._
import chisel3.iotesters.PeekPokeTester
import org.scalatest.{FlatSpec, Matchers}
class Xor extends core.ImplicitModule {
val io = IO(new Bundle {
val a = Input(UInt(4.W))
val b = Input(UInt(4.W))
val out = Output(UInt(4.W))
})
io.out <> (io.a ^ io.b)
}
class Reverse extends core.ImplicitModule {
val io = IO(new Bundle {
val in = Input(UInt(4.W))
val out = Output(UInt(4.W))
})
io.out <> util.Reverse(io.in)
}
class Loop extends core.ImplicitModule {
val io = IO(new Bundle {
val a = Input(UInt(4.W))
val b = Input(UInt(4.W))
val mux = Input(Bool())
val out = Output(UInt(4.W))
})
val x = Module(new Xor)
val r = Module(new Reverse)
r.io.in <> Mux(io.mux, io.a, x.io.out)
x.io.a <> Mux(io.mux, r.io.out, io.a)
x.io.b <> io.b
io.out <> Mux(io.mux, x.io.out, r.io.out)
}
class LoopBackExampleTester(cc: Loop) extends PeekPokeTester(cc) {
poke(cc.io.mux, false)
poke(cc.io.a, 0)
poke(cc.io.b, 1)
step(1)
expect(cc.io.out, 8)
}
class LoopBackExample extends FlatSpec with Matchers {
behavior of "Loop"
it should "work" in {
chisel3.iotesters.Driver.execute(Array("--no-check-comb-loops", "--fr-allow-cycles"), () => new Loop) { cc =>
new LoopBackExampleTester(cc)
} should be(true)
}
}
I will start by noting that Chisel is intended to make synchronous, flop-based, digital design easier and more flexible. It is not intended to represent all possible digital circuits. Fundamentally, Chisel exists to make the majority of stuff easier while leaving things that tend to be more closely coupled to implementation technology (like Analog) to Verilog or other languages.
Chisel (well FIRRTL) does not support such apparent combinational loops even if it possible to show that the loop can't occur due to the actual values on the mux selects. Such loops break timing analysis in synthesis and can make it difficult to create a sensible circuit. Furthermore, it isn't really true that the loop "can't occur". Unless there is careful physical design done here, there will likely be brief moments (a tiny fraction of a clock cycle) where there will be shorts which can cause substantial problems in your ASIC. Unless you are building something like a ring oscillator, most physical design teams will ask you not to do this anyway. For the cases where it is necessary, these designs typically are closely tied to the implementation technology (hand designed with standard cells) and as such are not really within the domain of Chisel.
If you need such a loop, you can express it in Verilog and instantiate the design as a BlackBox in your Chisel.
Related
I'm writing an architecture that makes extensive internal use of SyncReadMem, which is intended to represent SRAM memory banks. Our current synthesis toolchain, however, does not support SRAM properly, but is fine for registers and computational logic. So, whenever we're running a synthesis build, I pass in a flag that disables the elaboration of any SyncReadMem modules and treats them purely as IO signals:
class exampleModule (synthesis: Boolean) extends Module {
val io = IO(new Bundle {
val in = Input(UInt(32.W))
val out = Output(Uint(32.W))
val synth_bundle = if (synthesis) Some(new Bundle() {
val synth_out = Output(UInt(32.W))
val synth_in = Input(UInt(4.W))
}) else None
}
val mem_read = if (synthesis) {
val memory = SyncReadMem(1 << 32, UInt(4.W))
memory.read(io.in)
} else {
io.synth_bundle.get.synth_out := io.in
io.synth_bundle.get.synth_in
}
io.out := mem_read * 2.U
}
This, to my understanding, should properly elaborate all of my logic (ie not optimize anything out that I want to be there), and won't elaborate any of the memory whenever I have synthesis builds enabled.
The problem I'm running into is that for really hierarchical modules where a deeply ingrained module needs something like this, it requires every module above it to implement this synth_bundle style IO, requiring a bit of writing and adding no functionality. Is there some easier / more canonical way to do this?
Thank you
I'm new to Chisel, and I was wondering if it's possible to calculate constants in software before Chisel begins designing any circuitry. For instance, I have a module which takes one parameter, myParameter, but from this parameter I'd like to derive more variables (constant1 and constant2) that would be later used to initialize registers.
class MyModule(myParameter: Int) extends Module {
val io = IO(new Bundle{
val in = Input(SInt(8.W))
val out = Output(SInt(8.W))
})
val constant1 = 2 * myParameter
val constant2 = 17 * myParameter
val register1 = RegInit((constant1).U(8.W))
val register2 = RegInit((constant2).U(8.W))
//...
//...
}
Is there a way to configure Chisel's functionality so that an instance of MyModule(2) will first evaluate all Scala vals in software: constant1 = 2 * 2 = 4 and constant2 = 17 * 2 = 34. Then proceed to instantiate and initialize registers register1 = RegInit(4.U(8.W)) and register2 = RegInit(34.U(8.W))?
I was wondering if it's possible to calculate constants in software before Chisel begins designing any circuitry
Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, this is, in fact, how Chisel works.
Fundamentally, Chisel is a Scala library where the execution of your compiled Scala code creates hardware. This means that any pure-Scala code in your Chisel only exists at elaboration time, that is, during execution of this Scala program (which we call a generator).
Now, values in your program are created in sequential order as defined by Scala (and more-or-less the same as any general purpose programming language). For example, io is defined before constant1 and constant2 so the Chisel object for io will be created before either constants are calculated, but this shouldn't really matter for the purposes of your question.
A common practice in Chisel is to create custom classes to hold parameters when you have a lot of them. In this case, you could do something similar like this:
// Note this doesn't extend anything, it's just a Scala class
// Also note myParameter is a val now, this makes it accessible outside the class
class MyParameters(val myParameter: Int) {
val constant1 = 2 * myParameter
val constant2 = 17 * myParameter
}
class MyModule(params: MyParameters) extends Module {
val io = IO(new Bundle{
val in = Input(SInt(8.W))
val out = Output(SInt(8.W))
})
val register1 = RegInit((params.constant1).U(8.W))
val register2 = RegInit((params.constant2).U(8.W))
//...
//...
}
Hello I have a question regarding how to connect and map the ports between two modules, I will describe only the inputs and ouputs while excluding the control logic for each. The first module is a simple register whose output is the input to second module which is a demultiplexer
class simpleRegister extends Module {
val io = IO( new Bundle {
val enable = Input(UInt(1.W))
val in = Input(UInt(8.W))
val out = Output(UInt(8.W))
})
}
class demultiplexer extends Module {
val io = IO(new Bundle {
val datain = Input(UInt(8.W))
val dataout1 = Output(UInt(8.W))
val dataout2 = Output(UInt(8.W))
})
I am not sure if i should what method to use when I read " Interfaces & Bulk Connections" on github
You need to construct a top module that calls both the modules and perform the construction. This is pretty straight forward.
Your top module will look like this
class Top extends Module{
//You can expose a top level IO bundle if you will
val smplReg = Module(new simpleRegister)
val dmux = Module(new demultiplexer)
//connection of interest here is
dmux.io.datain := smplReg.io.out
//Make other connections as necessary
}
Interfaces and Bulk connections are when two IO bundles have similar fields instead of connecting each input/ output to the corresponding input/output you connect the bundle as a whole. This is just a way of optimizing your code.
Just noticed you can do something like:
class MyBundle1 extends Bundle {
val a = Bool()
val x = UInt(2.W)
val y = Bool()
}
class MyBundle2 extends Bundle {
val x = Bool()
val y = Bool()
}
class Foo extends Module {
val io = IO(new Bundle {
val in = Input(new MyBundle1)
val out = Output(new MyBundle2)
})
io.out := io.in
}
not get an error and actually get the correct or, at least, expected verilog. One would think that Chisel was type-safe wrt to Bundles in this sort of bulk connection. Is this intentional? If so, is there any particular reasons for it?
The semantics of := on Bundle allow the RHS to have fields that are not present on the LHS, but not vice-versa. The high-level description of x := y is "drive all fields of x with corresponding fields of y."
The bi-directional <> operator is stricter.
I can't speak precisely to the reasoning, but connection operators are often a matter of taste with respect to "do what I mean." The idea of including alternate forms of connection operators for future releases is an ongoing discussion, with the threat of "operator glut" being weighed against the ability of users to specify exactly what they'd like to do.
Consider a module that does some simple arithmetic and is controlled by a few parameters. One parameter controls the top level behavior: the module either reads its inputs from its module ports, or from other parameters. Therefore, the result will either be dynamically computed, or statically known at compile (cough, synthesis) time.
The Verilog generated by Chisel has different module names for the various flavors of this module, as expected. For the case where the result is statically known, there is a module with just one output port and a set of internal wires that are assigned constants and then implement the arithmetic to drive that output.
Is it possible to ask Chisel or FIRRTL to go further and completely optimize this away, i.e. in the next level of hierarchy up, just replace the instantiated module with its constant and statically known result? (granted that these constant values should by optimized away during synthesis, but maybe there are complicated use cases where this kind of elaboration time optimization could be useful).
For simple things that Firrtl currently knows how to constant propagate, it already actually does this. The issue is that it currently doesn't const prop arithmetic operators. I am planning to expand what operators can be constant propagated in the Chisel 3.1 release expected around New Years.
Below is an example of 3.0 behavior constant propagating a logical AND and a MUX.
import chisel3._
class OptChild extends Module {
val io = IO(new Bundle {
val a = Input(UInt(32.W))
val b = Input(UInt(32.W))
val s = Input(Bool())
val z = Output(UInt(32.W))
})
when (io.s) {
io.z := io.a & "hffff0000".U
} .otherwise {
io.z := io.b & "h0000ffff".U
}
}
class Optimize extends Module {
val io = IO(new Bundle {
val out = Output(UInt())
})
val child = Module(new OptChild)
child.io.a := "hdeadbeef".U
child.io.b := "hbadcad00".U
child.io.s := true.B
io.out := child.io.z
}
object OptimizeTop extends App {
chisel3.Driver.execute(args, () => new Optimize)
}
The emitted Verilog looks like:
module Optimize(
input clock,
input reset,
output [31:0] io_out
);
assign io_out = 32'hdead0000;
endmodule