Vivado 2016.2在2015.3没有的时机失败

你好@ elphel
2016年有多少终端未能满足时间要求？
请检查严重警告消息，并确保该工具接受所有约束。
您可以尝试使用不同的实施策略来满足2016.2设计的时间安排。
谢谢，迪皮卡.----------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------- Google之前的问题
张贴。
如果某人的帖子回答了您的问题，请将帖子标记为“接受为解决方案”。
如果你看到一个特别好的和信息丰富的帖子，考虑给它Kudos（左边的明星）



以下为原文

Hi @elphel
 
How many endpoints are failing to meet timing in 2016.2?
 
Please check Critical warning messages and ensure that all constraints are accepted by the tool.
 
You can try using different Implementation strategies to meet timing on 2016.2 design.
Thanks,
Deepika.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Google your question before posting. If someone's post answers your question, mark the post as answer with "Accept as solution". If you see a particularly good and informative post, consider giving it Kudos (the star on the left)

您好Deepika，
我附上了2015.3和2016.2的两个时间摘要。
差异不大（2016.2使用了更多资源，正如我在原帖中所提到的），这里是失败的约束：
2016年失败时间
ClockWNS（ns）TNS（ns）TNS失败端点TNS总端点WHS（ns）THS（ns）THS失败端点THS总端点WWP（ns）TPWS（ns）TPWS失败端点TPWS总端点
XCLK-0.145-1.98535340590.0550.0000340590.8750.000012975
PCLK-0.209-2.8864295360.0520.000095361.5060.00004675 
2015年的限制相同
ClockWNS（ns）TNS（ns）TNS失败端点TNS总端点WHS（ns）THS（ns）THS失败端点THS总端点WWP（ns）TPWS（ns）TPWS失败端点TPWS总端点
xclk0.0470.0000328330.0540.0000328330.8750.000013010
pclk0.2610.000093530.0530.000093531.3380.00004603  
没有严重警告（我使用的软件将它们视为错误），两个版本的设置相同。
我尝试了一些小的变化（即使2015.3并不总是满足时间），但是无法获得与旧的Vivado软件相同的结果。
当我不知道版本之间有什么区别时，做一些连贯的实验并不容易，我唯一的假设是在为新的硅（超级）优化软件时，旧的Zynq的一些内部设置/算法变得次优
。
我很乐意尝试一些特定的调整，或者只是等待并测试更高版本的时间。
安德烈
x393_hispi_9a_2015_3.timing_summary_impl 256 KB
x393_hispi_9a_2016_2.timing_summary_impl 257 KB



以下为原文

Hello Deepika,
 
I attached both timing summaries for 2015.3 and 2016.2. The difference is not big (also 2016.2 used more resources as I mentioned in the original post), here are the failing constraints:
 
Failing timing in 2016.2ClockWNS(ns)TNS(ns)TNS Failing EndpointsTNS Total EndpointsWHS(ns)THS(ns)THS Failing EndpointsTHS Total EndpointsWPWS(ns)TPWS(ns)TPWS Failing EndpointsTPWS Total Endpointsxclk-0.145-1.98535340590.0550.0000340590.8750.000012975pclk-0.209-2.8864295360.0520.000095361.5060.00004675  Same constraints in 2015.3ClockWNS(ns)TNS(ns)TNS Failing EndpointsTNS Total EndpointsWHS(ns)THS(ns)THS Failing EndpointsTHS Total EndpointsWPWS(ns)TPWS(ns)TPWS Failing EndpointsTPWS Total Endpointsxclk0.0470.0000328330.0540.0000328330.8750.000013010pclk0.2610.000093530.0530.000093531.3380.00004603     
No critical warnings (software I use treats them as errors), same settings for both versions. I tried some minor variations (even 2015.3 is not always meeting timing), but was not able to get the same results as with older Vivado software.
 
It is not easy to do some coherent experimenting when I do not know what is the difference between the versions, my only assumptions were that while optimizing software for the new silicon (ultrascale) some internal settings/algorithms for the older Zynq became sub-optimal. I'll be happy to try some specific tweaking or just wait and test later version when it will become available.
 
Andrey
 
            x393_hispi_9a_2015_3.timing_summary_impl ‏256 KB                x393_hispi_9a_2016_2.timing_summary_impl ‏257 KB