Multi-pick round robin arbiter

Name: Multi-pick round robin arbiter
Author: Temizkan, Fatih

İsim	Multi-pick round robin arbiter
Yazar	Temizkan, Fatih
Basım Tarihi:	2012-08
Konu	Computer arithmetic, Digital circuits, Digital design, Logic synthesis, Timing optimization, Automatic HDL code generation, Design automation, ASIC
Tür	Belge
Dil	İngilizce
Dijital	Evet
Yazma	Hayır
Kütüphane:	Özyeğin Üniversitesi
Kayıt Numarası	7954a771-2f28-4982-a2be-ff3c3941f781
Lokasyon	Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering
Tarih	2012-08
Örnek Metin	In this thesis, we propose two multi(m)-pick Round Robin Arbiter (RRA) architectures. An m-pick RRA selects the m topmost requests out of n inputs with priority order indicated by an internally kept pointer (with an update policy that ensures fairness among requestors). The architectures that we propose are m-pick Thermo Coded-Parallel Prefix Arbiter (TC-PPA) and Three-Dimensional Programmable m-Selector RRA (3DPmS-RRA). Prior to this thesis, these two architectures existed in the literature as 2-pick and 1-pick arbiters, respectively. Our main contribution to the literature is the generalization of these architectures to m-pick. A logic building block that we call ?Saturated Adder? plays a key role in this generalization, which makes the 1-pick and 2-pick architectures simply special cases. We developed six different variants of 3DPmS-RRA and eight different variants of m-pick TC-PPA. We wrote automated HDL code generators for all variants as well as Cascade Architecture, which is a straight-forward way of implementing a multi-pick RRA using 1-pick Programmable Priority Encoders. Then, all multi-pick architectures were verified and synthesized. Our experimental results show that 3DPmS-RRA architecture is the best choice for all pick sizes (except 2-pick) when timing is the primary design criterion. However, when area is more critical, TC-PPA architecture performs better. It is worthwhile to note that in terms of timing 3DPmS-RRA is better than TC-PPA by a mere 8% at the most based on our synthesis results. However, when we consider area, TC-PPA has significant improvements over 3DPmS-RRA, up to 53%.

Kaynağa git Özyeğin Üniversitesi

Aramaya Dön

Özyeğin Üniversitesi

Kaynağa git

Multi-pick round robin arbiter

Yazar Temizkan, Fatih

Basım Tarihi 2012-08

Konu Computer arithmetic, Digital circuits, Digital design, Logic synthesis, Timing optimization, Automatic HDL code generation, Design automation, ASIC

Tür Belge

Dil İngilizce

Dijital Evet

Yazma Hayır

Kütüphane Özyeğin Üniversitesi

Kayıt Numarası 7954a771-2f28-4982-a2be-ff3c3941f781

Lokasyon Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering

Tarih 2012-08

Örnek Metin In this thesis, we propose two multi(m)-pick Round Robin Arbiter (RRA) architectures. An m-pick RRA selects the m topmost requests out of n inputs with priority order indicated by an internally kept pointer (with an update policy that ensures fairness among requestors). The architectures that we propose are m-pick Thermo Coded-Parallel Prefix Arbiter (TC-PPA) and Three-Dimensional Programmable m-Selector RRA (3DPmS-RRA). Prior to this thesis, these two architectures existed in the literature as 2-pick and 1-pick arbiters, respectively. Our main contribution to the literature is the generalization of these architectures to m-pick. A logic building block that we call ?Saturated Adder? plays a key role in this generalization, which makes the 1-pick and 2-pick architectures simply special cases. We developed six different variants of 3DPmS-RRA and eight different variants of m-pick TC-PPA. We wrote automated HDL code generators for all variants as well as Cascade Architecture, which is a straight-forward way of implementing a multi-pick RRA using 1-pick Programmable Priority Encoders. Then, all multi-pick architectures were verified and synthesized. Our experimental results show that 3DPmS-RRA architecture is the best choice for all pick sizes (except 2-pick) when timing is the primary design criterion. However, when area is more critical, TC-PPA architecture performs better. It is worthwhile to note that in terms of timing 3DPmS-RRA is better than TC-PPA by a mere 8% at the most based on our synthesis results. However, when we consider area, TC-PPA has significant improvements over 3DPmS-RRA, up to 53%.