Wednesday, 2022-12-14

*** pbsds <pbsds!~pbsds@193.71.241.70> has quit IRC00:54
*** pbsds <pbsds!~pbsds@193.71.241.70> has joined #f4pga00:55
*** pbsds <pbsds!~pbsds@193.71.241.70> has quit IRC01:07
*** pbsds <pbsds!~pbsds@193.71.241.70> has joined #f4pga01:10
*** ec <ec!~ec@gateway/tor-sasl/ec> has quit IRC02:11
*** ec <ec!~ec@gateway/tor-sasl/ec> has joined #f4pga02:11
*** bl0x <bl0x!~bl0x@p200300d7a70f6e009c44a667b446581e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> has joined #f4pga02:38
*** bl0x_ <bl0x_!~bl0x@p54a7022e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> has quit IRC02:40
*** jn <jn!~quassel@user/jn/x-3390946> has quit IRC05:24
*** jn <jn!~quassel@ip-095-223-044-193.um35.pools.vodafone-ip.de> has joined #f4pga05:25
*** jn <jn!~quassel@ip-095-223-044-193.um35.pools.vodafone-ip.de> has quit IRC05:25
*** jn <jn!~quassel@user/jn/x-3390946> has joined #f4pga05:25
*** chexum <chexum!~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/chexum> has quit IRC06:14
*** chexum <chexum!~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/chexum> has joined #f4pga06:15
*** chexum <chexum!~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/chexum> has quit IRC06:45
*** chexum <chexum!~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/chexum> has joined #f4pga06:45
*** chexum <chexum!~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/chexum> has quit IRC07:27
*** chexum <chexum!~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/chexum> has joined #f4pga07:29
*** ec <ec!~ec@gateway/tor-sasl/ec> has quit IRC07:31
*** ec <ec!~ec@gateway/tor-sasl/ec> has joined #f4pga07:32
*** indy_ is now known as indy09:08
*** bl0x <bl0x!~bl0x@p200300d7a70f6e009c44a667b446581e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> has quit IRC09:33
*** bl0x <bl0x!~bl0x@p4ff4491b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> has joined #f4pga09:34
*** TMM__ <TMM__!hp@amanda.tmm.cx> has quit IRC10:16
*** TMM_ <TMM_!hp@amanda.tmm.cx> has joined #f4pga10:16
F4PGASlackBridge<tmichalak> Hmm, so the math looks good when taking tilegrid into account: ```    "RIOB18_X73Y25": {         "bits": {             "CLB_IO_CLK": {                 "baseaddr": "0x00442480",                 "frames": 42,                  "offset": 51,                  "words": 4             }         }, ``` The bit in the `unknown_segbits` is the absolute value, so in case of `004424a7_54_31` it's 39th frame (as you already11:09
F4PGASlackBridgecalculated) and `54*32+31=1759` th bit. Since the word offset for this tile is 51 then 54 is inthe range expressed by `words`. So I am kind of surprised that you get this `out of range` error11:09
F4PGASlackBridge<hansfbaier> @tmichalak What would the .db style bit entry look like? 39_1759 obviously doesn't work (gives me the out of range error)....11:46
F4PGASlackBridge<hansfbaier> @tmichalak Ah, probably it will be 1759-51*32?11:50
F4PGASlackBridge<tmichalak> The db entry is relative to the beginning of the segment, so in this case it's `(54-51)*32+31 = 127`, hence 39_12711:51
F4PGASlackBridge<hansfbaier> @tmichalak Great, thanks, I begin to understand. Let me try to insert that manually in the db and see if it works :)11:51
F4PGASlackBridge<tmichalak> Sure, no problem. I am running the fuzzer locally, to see if this feature is there anywhere and why it ends up at 0 candidates11:53
F4PGASlackBridge<hansfbaier> @tmichalak If that is solved, DDR3 might work on the high performance banks! It already works for all the bits on the Y1 pads!11:55
F4PGASlackBridge<hansfbaier> https://twitter.com/i/timeline11:55
F4PGASlackBridge<tmichalak> Oh, cool - it really seems that every other bit works !!!11:58
F4PGASlackBridge<hansfbaier> YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!12:01
F4PGASlackBridge<tmichalak> Great !!!12:02
F4PGASlackBridge<kgugala> Awesome12:02
F4PGASlackBridge<hansfbaier> ```RIOB18.IOB_Y0.SSTL12_SSTL135_SSTL15.IN 39_127``` This line did the trick12:04
F4PGASlackBridge<tmichalak> Ok, now we need to make sure the fuzzer does spit it out :)12:09
F4PGASlackBridge<hansfbaier> Yes12:19
F4PGASlackBridge<hansfbaier> I really wonder why it doesn't find the bit. I found a couple of minor bugs in the fuzzer (see PR today), but those didn't do the trick12:20
F4PGASlackBridge<hansfbaier>12:21
F4PGASlackBridge<hansfbaier> :tada::tada::tada::tada::tada::tada::tada::tada::tada::tada::tada::tada::tada::tada:12:28
*** chexum <chexum!~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/chexum> has quit IRC15:03
*** chexum <chexum!~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/chexum> has joined #f4pga15:04
*** gromero <gromero!~gromero@189-47-47-185.dsl.telesp.net.br> has quit IRC16:37
F4PGASlackBridge<tmichalak> @hansfbaier I had a quick look at segmatch (after quite some time) and pushed some dirty changes (https://github.com/antmicro/prjxray/commit/5db9cc86d533e2dbfa524964099e974128252faf) which shows at which segment in which specimen the candidate bits disappear which results in "0 candidates" in the .rdb. From what I can see we are aiming at `39_127` for the following features: `RIOB18.IOB_Y0.SSTL12.IN`17:07
F4PGASlackBridge`RIOB18.IOB_Y0.SSTL135.IN` and `RIOB18.IOB_Y0.SSTL15.IN`, but in several segments there is no `39_127` even though the features above are set to `1`17:07
*** ec <ec!~ec@gateway/tor-sasl/ec> has quit IRC17:08
*** ec <ec!~ec@gateway/tor-sasl/ec> has joined #f4pga17:09
*** jacobk <jacobk!~quassel@47-186-81-17.dlls.tx.frontiernet.net> has quit IRC19:13
*** jacobk <jacobk!~quassel@47-186-81-17.dlls.tx.frontiernet.net> has joined #f4pga19:23
F4PGASlackBridge<hansfbaier> @tmichalak Actually the bit appears in  RIOB18.IOB_Y0.LVCMOS12_LVCMOS15_LVCMOS18.IN 38_126 39_12721:28
F4PGASlackBridge<hansfbaier> So analogous to Y1, the correct line should be like that to exclude the other bit which is specific to LVCMOS:21:47
F4PGASlackBridge<tmichalak> Yes, there should be at least one negated bit to distinguish between LVCMOS and SSTL22:42

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.1 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!