ALuPin,
First read Allan's post.
Bottom line, if Clk is doing a normal 0-1 transition,
these two are equivalent. Highlighting the differences:
rising_edge(Clk) finds 0-1, L-1, 0-H, L-H transitions of Clk
clk='1' and Clk'event finds all changes except 1-1.
If your problem only occurs at time 0, you have run into a
well known issue that is easy to avoid. See below.
If this happens at times other than time 0, the clock
net is misbehaving and it probably needs to be fixed.
I would not consider an X-1 transition of clock a valid
functional clock.
From a different point of view, how are you deciding
that your designs are different? If you mask out
things that occur before reset is applied, are they
the same?
Avoiding time 0 Problems
--------------------------
To avoid time 0 problems, I start clock at the inactive
edge and I initialize it:
signal Clk : std_logic := '0' ;
.. . .
Clk <= not Clk after tperiod_Clk/2 ;
-- or --
process begin
Clk <= '0' ;
wait for tperiod_Clk/2 ;
Clk <= '1' ;
wait for tperiod_Clk/2 ;
end process ;
Use the form that matches your current clock driving methodology.
Although I recommend the first form for new projects, I do
not recommend switching after you have built and run testbenches
because differences in execution of testbenches that can result.
To illuminate this, consider the code below (note Sel is driven
only so you can see the differences in the two clock setups).
Sel <= '0' after tpd ; -- where tpd << tperiod_Clk
wait for 10 * tperiod_Clk ; --
wait until Clk = '1' ; -- align with clock
Sel <= '1' after tpd ;
Simulation differences here are due to differences in
delta cycle setup time of the clocks above.
Long term, when using wait for that is a function of
your clock period, I using the following:
wait for 10*tperiod_Clk - tpd ;
wait until Clk = '1' ;
Cheers,
Jim
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Lewis
Director of Training private.php?do=newpm&u=
SynthWorks Design Inc.
http://www.SynthWorks.com
1-503-590-4787
Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
> Hi,
>
> I have a question concerning the following phenomenon:
>
> I have a signal which is registered by the following way:
>
>
> entity xy is
> port (...
> DQS : inout std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);
> );
> end xy;
>
> architecture zy of xy is
> signal l_input_cell : std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);
> begin
>
> process(Reset, Clk)
> begin
> if Reset='1' then
> l_input_cell <= (others => '0');
> elsif rising_edge(Clk) then
> l_input_cell <= DQS;
> end if;
> end process;
> end zy;
>
> When I simulated the design (I had changed a different design to my
> own
> VHDL style) I got different simulation results (functional simulation
> Modelsim) with respect to the signal "l_input_cell".
>
> Then I changed "rising_edge(Clk)" back to "Clk'event and Clk='1'" and
> I got the same result as in the original design.
>
> So why is there a difference at all?
> Does the use of an INOUT port play any role ?
>
> I would appreciate your help.
>
> Kind regards
>
> André
Similar Threads
