Programming Altera Devices

Discussion in 'VHDL' started by ALuPin, Jun 28, 2004.

  1. ALuPin

    ALuPin Guest

    Hi newsgroup users,

    can someone tell me how to define the programming time of a EP1C12 Cyclone
    when using PL-BYTEBLASTER2 cable in comparison to PL-USB-BLASTER cable?

    Thank you for your help.


    Rgds
    ALuPin, Jun 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ALuPin wrote:
    > can someone tell me how to define the programming time of a EP1C12 Cyclone
    > when using PL-BYTEBLASTER2 cable in comparison to PL-USB-BLASTER cable?


    Wrong newsgroup, try comp.arch.fpga.
    --
    Tim Hubberstey, P.Eng. . . . . . Hardware/Software Consulting Engineer
    Marmot Engineering . . . . . . . VHDL, ASICs, FPGAs, embedded systems
    Vancouver, BC, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . http://www.marmot-eng.com
    Tim Hubberstey, Jun 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ALuPin

    ALuPin Guest

    Tim Hubberstey <> wrote in message news:<e0YDc.29232$E84.16282@edtnps89>...
    > ALuPin wrote:
    > > can someone tell me how to define the programming time of a EP1C12 Cyclone
    > > when using PL-BYTEBLASTER2 cable in comparison to PL-USB-BLASTER cable?

    >


    Wrong newsgroup? Why?
    Does describing hardware not mean programming it sooner or later?
    ALuPin, Jun 29, 2004
    #3
  4. ALuPin wrote:
    > Tim Hubberstey <> wrote in message news:<e0YDc.29232$E84.16282@edtnps89>...
    >
    >>ALuPin wrote:
    >>
    >>>can someone tell me how to define the programming time of a EP1C12 Cyclone
    >>>when using PL-BYTEBLASTER2 cable in comparison to PL-USB-BLASTER cable?

    >>

    >
    > Wrong newsgroup? Why?


    First, because this group is for discussing the VHDL language and tools
    directly related to the language. Check the FAQs for the charter (
    http://www.eda.org/comp.lang.vhdl ). Details of programming hardware
    does not fall under this definition, IMO. If all questions were
    appropriate for all newsgroups, there would be no reason to have
    anything other than one giant group instead of the hierarchy of groups
    that does exist.

    Second, because, presumably, you want an answer to your question.
    comp.arch.fpga is a better venue for getting an answer because you have
    a broader base of people who are specifically interested in FPGAs.

    > Does describing hardware not mean programming it sooner or later?


    Actually, no it doesn't. FPGA/CPLD devices are only a subset of the
    hardware developed using VHDL. I have written thousands of lines of VHDL
    (for ASICs) that have never passed through any kind of programmer. And
    then there's the 60% of the total code that is used for verification
    that isn't even synthesizable.
    --
    Tim Hubberstey, P.Eng. . . . . . Hardware/Software Consulting Engineer
    Marmot Engineering . . . . . . . VHDL, ASICs, FPGAs, embedded systems
    Vancouver, BC, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . http://www.marmot-eng.com
    Tim Hubberstey, Jun 29, 2004
    #4
  5. ALuPin

    ALuPin Guest

    > First, because this group is for discussing the VHDL language and tools
    > directly related to the language. Check the FAQs for the charter (
    > http://www.eda.org/comp.lang.vhdl ). Details of programming hardware
    > does not fall under this definition, IMO. If all questions were
    > appropriate for all newsgroups, there would be no reason to have
    > anything other than one giant group instead of the hierarchy of groups
    > that does exist.

    I have seen a lot of persons asking in comp.arch.fpga and
    comp.lang.vhdl
    I experienced that these two newsgroups offer a better complete answer to me,
    sometimes the one, sometimes the other - even in regard with
    FPGA specific questions.
    >
    > Second, because, presumably, you want an answer to your question.

    Yes of course, but I did not get it in 'comp.arch.fpga' yet.
    > comp.arch.fpga is a better venue for getting an answer because you have
    > a broader base of people who are specifically interested in FPGAs.
    >
    > > Does describing hardware not mean programming it sooner or later?

    >
    > Actually, no it doesn't. FPGA/CPLD devices are only a subset of the
    > hardware developed using VHDL. I have written thousands of lines of VHDL
    > (for ASICs) that have never passed through any kind of programmer. And
    > then there's the 60% of the total code that is used for verification
    > that isn't even synthesizable.
    ALuPin, Jun 29, 2004
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ronny Hengst

    Altera to Xilinx

    Ronny Hengst, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,360
    Andras Tantos
    Jul 24, 2003
  2. dong seok huh
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    774
    Bill Grubbs
    Sep 18, 2003
  3. chaitu
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    812
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    453
  5. Naveen Vaila

    "Windows CE Devices and Palm Devices Help Needed"

    Naveen Vaila, May 24, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net Mobile
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    501
    Abraham Durairaj
    Jun 23, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page