Back to Search

Multi-pick round robin arbiter

Title	Multi-pick round robin arbiter
Author	Temizkan, Fatih
Publication Date:	2012-08
Subject	Computer arithmetic, Digital circuits, Digital design, Logic synthesis, Timing optimization, Automatic HDL code generation, Design automation, ASIC
Type	Document
Language	English
Digital	Yes
Manuscript	No
Library:	Özyeğin University
Record ID	7954a771-2f28-4982-a2be-ff3c3941f781
Library Location	Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering
Date	2012-08
Sample Text	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%.

View in source Özyeğin University Özyeğin University - Historical works, archives, and periodicals search engine

Özyeğin University

Multi-pick round robin arbiter

Author Temizkan, Fatih

Publication Date 2012-08

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

Type Document

Language English

Digital Yes

Manuscript No

Library Özyeğin University

Record ID 7954a771-2f28-4982-a2be-ff3c3941f781

Library Location Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering

Date 2012-08

Sample Text 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%.