Open elms opened 5 years ago
I think the correct way would be to model them in the routing graph and emit features when used. It could also be done in a post-PnR (place and route) fixup step.
Definitely a post-PnR fixup. Clock networks in 7-series have something similar, but it is definitely an if A then B thing. Sounds like the Column Buffers are similiar?
I think the correct way would be to model them in the routing graph and emit features when used. It could also be done in a post-PnR (place and route) fixup step.
Definitely a post-PnR fixup. Clock networks in 7-series have something similar, but it is definitely an if A then B thing. Sounds like the Column Buffers are similiar?
Can you explain the trade-offs (downside) of modeling in the routing graph?
I think the correct way would be to model them in the routing graph and emit features when used. It could also be done in a post-PnR (place and route) fixup step.
Definitely a post-PnR fixup. Clock networks in 7-series have something similar, but it is definitely an if A then B thing. Sounds like the Column Buffers are similiar?
Can you explain the trade-offs (downside) of modeling in the routing graph?
I actually think the 7-series BUF REBUF case can be handled in the routing graph, so I take back my previous statement. I am worried about some of the feature enables for the clock being done in the routing graph, and it may be simpler to test and code in a post-PnR solution. I guess the distinction is if the feature can be tied to one edge, then maybe it will work out.
Column Buffer enabling is inferred via HLC. Moving to FASM with #447 turns on all the Column Buffers for now. This works but wastes power.
I think the correct way would be to model them in the routing graph and emit features when used. It could also be done in a post-PnR (place and route) fixup step.