- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
hi,
So have a 125mhz with ppm of 300, my calcualtions are: 300ppm is 0.03% of 8 ns -> 2.4ps ~3ps so i had put on the SDC: set_clock_uncertainty -rise_from [get_clocks {clk125}] -rise_to [get_clocks {clk125}] -setup 0.003 set_clock_uncertainty -rise_from [get_clocks {clk125}] -fall_to [get_clocks {clk125}] -setup 0.003 set_clock_uncertainty -fall_from [get_clocks {clk125}] -rise_to [get_clocks {clk125}] -setup 0.003 set_clock_uncertainty -fall_from [get_clocks {clk125}] -fall_to [get_clocks {clk125}] -setup 0.003 set_clock_uncertainty -rise_from [get_clocks {clk125}] -rise_to [get_clocks {clk125}] -hold 0.003 set_clock_uncertainty -rise_from [get_clocks {clk125}] -fall_to [get_clocks {clk125}] -hold 0.003 set_clock_uncertainty -fall_from [get_clocks {clk125}] -rise_to [get_clocks {clk125}] -hold 0.003 set_clock_uncertainty -fall_from [get_clocks {clk125}] -fall_to [get_clocks {clk125}] -hold 0.003 is that looks right? or i should double the value?Link Copied
1 Reply
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
That looks right to me. You don't need to double your values as this is handled in the separate entries for rise to rise etc.
However, these are pretty small numbers. I suggest you run the "derive_clock_uncertainty" for your design. This will add similar entries to the constraints file but knowing nothing of the quality of the clock you're using. These values will be based on the uncertainty introduced by the FPGA's buffers/routing etc. I suspect you'll find these number significantly larger than the 3ps you're proposing to add - e.g. I typically see 20ps for Cyclone IV devices. Needless to say (perhaps) you need to use the larger uncertainty figure. Cheers, Alex
Reply
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page