KJ said:
> I've got the definite impression that we are not on the same page
when > we talk about what it means for something to be 'standardized'.
I don't write standards, I write code for fpga-based products.
LPM was nice while it lasted, but it lost support of the
vendors in 2000, and I still have work to do.
> What is generally more useful would be to have a number of flag
> outputs where the depth where the flag
> gets triggered can be specified by a generic value
> (like half full, three quarters full, .98% full, etc.)
Good idea. I'll put that in.
> Users of fifos tend to think of 'writing' and 'reading' the fifo,
> not 'pushing' and 'popping' it as sync_fifo does.
> In fact 'push' and 'pop' give the implication of a stack.
Agreed. I used those names because they were short
and help me visualize the data block.
> Mike would probably agree that his 'sync_fifo' could very
> well have been implemented with the exact same set of
> parameter and signal names as lpm_fifo but he chose not to.
Yes. I found the original LPM code to be mind numbing.
> Mike being able to reuse 'sync_fifo' wherever he needs
> fifo functionality though is no different than any
> other FPGA vendor pushing their 'standard'.
I'm not a vendor and I am not pushing anything.
I find examples of readable, working code interesting.
If you don't, feel free to ignore them.
-- Mike Treseler
