请问是否可以将为较小尺寸的FPGA生成的编程文件编程到更大的FPGA？

你好@ pirajf，
如果更改FPGA部件以选择更大的器件，其ID代码将会更改。
因此在iMPACT中，它将在IDCODE检查中失败，因为设备IDCODE将与预期的IDCODE不匹配。
因此，建议您使用修改后的设备生成比特流，然后仅使用iMPACT进行配置。
问候，阿希什-----------------------------------------------
-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - -请注意-
如果提供的信息有用，请将答案标记为“接受为解决方案”。给予您认为有用且回复的帖子。感谢Kudos .--------------------
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------



以下为原文

Hello @pirajf,
 
If you change the FPGA part to select the bigger device, its ID code will get changed. So in iMPACT it will fail in IDCODE check because device IDCODE won't match with the Expected IDCODE. Hence it is recommended that you generate bitstream with modified device and then only configure it using iMPACT.
Regards,
Ashish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kindly note- Please mark the Answer as "Accept as solution" if information provided is helpful.
Give Kudos to a post which you think is helpful and reply oriented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

实际上，ID代码是最少的问题。
事实上，它主要是为了防止您加载错误的比特流，这可能会损坏设备。
较大的FPGA将具有更多的行和列结构，并且即使您可以以某种方式将原始设计放置在相同的相对位置并重新创建路由，其比特流也将完全不同。
所以简短的回答是否定的。
您必须为目标设备创建比特流。
-  Gabor



以下为原文

Actually the ID code is the least of the problems.  In fact it's mostly there to prevent you from loading the wrong bitstream, which could damage a device.  The larger FPGA will have more rows and columns of fabric and its bitstream will be completely different even if you could somehow place the original design in the same relative positions and re-create the routing.  So the short answer is no.  You must create the bitstream for the device you target.
-- Gabor

多谢你们



以下为原文

Thanks guys

gszakacs @gszakacs @ashishd
他们一直在我的公司做这件事。
唯一的问题是我们有两个不同的板子
xc2s200e-7pq208和xc2s300e-7pq208的另一个
两块板共享XC18V02 Prom，因此在写入PROM时没有错误。
但有趣的是，他们已经工作了10多年：S怎么可能呢？
你们认为这对FPGA有害吗？
如果是，以什么方式？
提前致谢



以下为原文

gszakacs @gszakacs @ashishd
 
They have been doing this at my company. The only thing is that we have two different boards one with
xc2s200e-7pq208 and the other one with xc2s300e-7pq208

 
Both boards share XC18V02 Prom and because of that there is no error when you write to the PROM. But interestingly enough they have been working for  more than 10 years :S how is that even possible?
 
Do you guys think that this can be harmful tothe FPGA? and if yes in what way?
 
Thanks in advance
 

这可行的唯一方法是每个董事会在PROM中有不同的计划。
FPGA不会从为不同部分准备的位文件加载，因此您不能损坏它，但它不起作用。
有一些新设备实际上共享一个共同的芯片，因此可能能够从错误的比特流运行，但Spartan 2e部件不属于这一类。
200e和300e具有不同的比特流长度。
-  Gabor



以下为原文

The only way this could work is if each board had a different program in the PROM.  The FPGA will not load from the a bit file prepared for a different part, so you could not damage it, but it would not work.  There are a few newer devices that actually share a common die and therefore might be able to run from the wrong bitstream, however the Spartan 2e parts are not in this category.  The 200e and 300e have different bitstream lengths.
-- Gabor

小心。
如果我记得，Spartan-II系列没有设备ID检查。
因此，为不同的Spartan-II部分生成的比特流将加载而不会抱怨。
然而，这不是一个好主意，除非你真的，真的很糟糕。
可能会导致大量争用，尤其是当您从较小的部分转到较大的部分时。
所以这绝对不可取。
在更糟糕的情况下，该部件将完全过热。
对于之后的任何其他生成，特定部分确实具有防止加载不正确的比特流的设备ID。
这也适用于被打猎的零件。



以下为原文

Careful. If I recall, the Spartan-II family does not have the device ID check. So a bitstream generated for a different Spartan-II part would load without complain. However, that is not a good idea unless you get really, really lucky. Can cause massive contention, especially if you go from a smaller part to a larger part. So it's definetly not advisable. In the worse case scenario is that the part will totally overheat.
 
For any other generation after that a specific part does have a device ID that prevents an improper bitstream to be loaded. This also applies to parts that are derrived.