Designed & Made
in America (DMA)

Internet of Things (IoT) Security, Privacy, Safety -Platform Development Project Part-21 | BASIL Networks Blog BN'B

23 Mar, 2020

Internet of Things (IoT) Security, Privacy, Safety -Platform Development Project Part-21

Part 21: IoT Core Platform Development;- Peripheral I/O Device Design
The IoT Embedded Core Platform -Peripheral Devices Real World Testing - Continued (Update May 14, 2020)

"The first rule of any technology used in a business is that automation applied to an efficient operation will magnify the efficiency.  The second is that automation applied to an inefficient operation will magnify the inefficiency." ( Bill Gates - Oct 28 1955 - )

As we stated in past presentations in this series development costs are easily exceeded when the performance expectations and in that case performance requirements are not documented properly, hence: the infamous "TBD" -To Be Determined.  This forces a direction change "AND" direction changes are commonly not listed as part of  performance expectations.  Sometimes the development "process" is faulty or just plain broken period.  The intent of this series in not to maintain the insanity of over budget development costs but to disrupt it in order to allow the creation of new habits that will give a solid foundation for engineering practices to be successful when starting a development project.

For the new designer that is taking on the learning of CPLD and FPGA design, "Each design completed is experience for the next lever of development."  There are only experiences and techniques that will bring you to the advanced level of applications.

IoT_Index Quick Links

Quick review to set the atmosphere for Part 21:
Every new year technology advancements exceed the previous years, we get to apply some new technologies released to gain experience.  This past year 2019 many new devices and IC emerged on the market for developers and applications for the IoT arena.  We will address some of the new devices and in fact may have an impact on our IoT Core development series.  This is the new reality of product development in a fast changing technology environment, sometimes the product becomes obsolete before you are able to get it to market.  Project management becomes a bit challenging when faced with obsolescence during development   Simple buy for the end of life becomes a marketing nightmare knowing that the competition will release a competitive product with the latest hardware while your product is using obsolete or discontinued components.  Designers and development integration becomes a real design dilemma determining if the replacement "If There Is One" will cost a complete redesign or a firmware/Software update and more.

So as of this writing here is what has been happening in the micro silicon embedded world,   A couple of new embedded processors have emerged from all the Mergers & Acquisitions and many processors have been discontinued.  Performance and features such as higher core speeds and multiple cores make it applicable to many AI (Artificial Intelligent) applications.  Several interface ICs have been released that may help the interface sensors etc. along, however careful consideration has to be taken to insure that the interface will be around for at least five years to accommodate the embedded lifecycle requirements.

It is easy to loose focus on the project with all the new technology being released so a quick review to remain focused on the series.  This series is focused on the development of a Core Platform IoT applications and has a dual purpose, first an educational project development for the entrepreneurial mindset along with applications, second the implementation of remote sensing and control incorporating safety, security and privacy over a wide range of peripherals including wireless.  This should be kept in mind since we will be designing in some redundancy for reliability and security.  For the yourg newcommer to product design and development if you are chosed to be mentored by a senior accept humbly, it will be the most rewarding experience of earned knowledge you will every have.  

Since the wireless industry and advanced since the introduction of the IoT devices we have also started a new series on Wireless technology in a separate category, Wave Phenomenon, Antennas & Radiation in the category of Wave Propagation and Antennas.

The ITF development Project:
The ITF did create a change in direction, however did not change the desired results, this is not only common in development projects but is some cases required to meet the desired expectations.  The issues here are handling multiple projects, resources available and the changed timeline, just a short change in direction to complete the objective.  A validation that the real time product development process is far from being a linear process from conception to finished product.

Remember changing direction overnight does not mean changing goals our the final destination, it is just a better way to insure you will reach the desired destination.  In my years of exposure to the design arena as a designer, troubleshooter and mentor I have had the honor of experiencing innovative and passionate creators to realize that the creative thought process of an individual is not a linear step function, 1, 2, 3 ...N, probably because humans are not robots, that follow a preprogrammed set of processes as some may think of engineers.  The innovation of the human mind subconsciously is always performing scenarios to find the best solution for the task at hand and "developing habits along the way".

We will pick up from the last couple of parts in the series that cover CPLD#1 and CPLD#2 to put us in perspective for a complex design.  In Part-19 the digital I/O section of the ITF which included CPLD #2 was presented.  Due to the complexity and size of the blog only the first part of the Digital I/O was presented which included the following sections.

In Part-20 the continuation of the digital I/O design which included the internals of CPLD#2 registers, preliminary flow diagram and pin requirements of the CPLD and the first pass CPLD#2 design.  The important part of this section was the templates for tracking and creating PCB footprints by pin number and pin names.

What we want to cover in Part 21:
In Part-16 through 20 we addressed the issue of why we should consider testing of the peripherals (Proof of Design) PoD with a prototype build to insure when we interconnect several of the peripherals the throughput required for the applications will be met.  This allows the opportunity to change the development direction from the peripheral point of view if performance expectations become an issue. Developing a test methodology that will be used for testing peripherals for the platform keeping in mind peripheral throughput limitations. These are new habits being developed at a conscience mind set level that will connect to become the default critical thought process during development.  With that stated we will continue moving forward with detailing the Interface Test Fixture (ITF) CPLD #2.

Updating the IPD project documentation for the ITF (Interface Test Fixture) to keep track of the development process, "Documentation is a living process during development", a good habit to make!  The reference for the ITF is the functional block diagram Figure 16.1

Lets Get Started:

Some questions answered from our readers
"What happen to the series?,
"It has been a few months since part 20 publication, are you going to continue the series?
To answer the above two questions - YES the series will continue.   BASIL Networks, PLLC own and maintain several on-line servers as well as off-line servers all located on-site. We are in the process of upgrading them to the latest and greatest compliant requirements aw with all upgrade and new installations this took "longer" than planned, HHMMmm I think I said that about product development timing some where, well again we have added another first hand experience to our portfolio. Cool   We also started a new blog design category as we stated several times in this series about wireless and security, this new blog is addressing the wireless section and as always we start at the very basics and work up to the expert level for our readers.  The new blog is Wireless, Radiation and Antennas.  Yes, I know it was mentioned and linked a few paragraphs back. It is the old poetic license of repeating ones self three times, so that leaves one more time somewhere in this part.

Refresher on Security,  CPU Code and Encryption:
When designing products that are controlled by some type of processor keeping a security mindset should always be an active part of the design process.  There are several sections of a security policy to be taken into consideration when designing any product that will be connected to a network be it global or local.   Access security implementation is by far the most time driven authentication process today.  From Single Password Authentication to Multi-Factor-Authentication software driven it takes time to access and perform all the decryption, table look-ups and more.  Most financial and many government sites have incorporated MFA and generally it is less expensive to incorporate a software change than to upgrade physical hardware.  A few of the top level questions to address for the security poplicy are:  Who will be accessing the device?,   What type(s) of encryption to use?,  Who owns the keys?,  Are the encryption keys changeable?,  are just the few top level ones.  We will cover a few ways of insuring security and privacy for the IoT Core Platform as we move forward.

OK, why the security refresher?  This is where we incorporate the mindset to design in access security, proivacy and safety for the I/O part of the IoT Platform.  What does this have to do with the Core IoT Platform?  Putting security in the ITF allows us to test different access methodologies for access control.  For the ITF the design incorporates the CPLDs internal FLASH that will allow the user to embed a series of encryption keys as well as ITF device serial number, and other identifying characteristics which may also be encrypted and assigned to a specific PC it is used with for added security.

It is much easier to incorporate hardware access security in the initial design stage than attempting to add a hardware security feature after the design is complete with some type of after thought patch.  The MAX-II  EPM1270T144C3 incorporates an 8192 bit FLASH that may be organized by byte or word and configured during the CPLD programming stage as 1024x8 or 512x16.  By enabling the security bit the FLASH and the CPLD configuration are not readable to the user, however the ability to completely erase the device remains, keeping the data from being read.  This is a good start, however we still have to create a security policy to implement into the CPLD FLASH.  This is addressed later in the series.

ITF CPLD#1 A/D vs CPLD#2 Data I/O Peripheral:
A brief comparison of the CPLD#1 A/D design and CPLD #2 High Speed Digital I/O Design.  Both incorporate a SRAM buffer to collect data at a periodic programmable rate or manually triggered externally.  However the design parameters are completely different, for one the high speed digital I/O requires a 10ns static RAM and the A/D is much slower 1us conversion time so a 1 typical PSRAM of 55ns is sufficient and much less costly.

A/D Channel vs Data I/O Throughput 
A quick comparison of the two technologies, the A/D Channel is a 1 us Sample rate via a 50MHz 16 bit  (20ns x16) Serial interface.  The actual conversion time is approximately 700 ns which allows ample time for the serial data to be transferred into the PSRAM on board without missing any points until the number of samples has been obtained.

The Parallel 16 bit interface in CPLD #2 is different since we require the full 50 MHz or faster x16 bit transfer rate without missing points.  This simply states that the full time cycle to write to memory is less than 20ns in order to meet the 50 MHz transfer rate.  The main difference is that the memory type for this requires a full Static RAM type of 10ns or faster verses a Pseudo SRAM type of speeds 70ns typical.  The faster the SRAM the higher the cost also the faster the throughput and the more power required which generates more heat.  There are a smaller selection to choose from when designing with 10ns or faster SRAM devices.  There is a list in the Reference Links of the selected high speed SRAM devices for this project at this time.

Peripheral vs. Functions
When designing any product including test fixtures the Peripheral vs Function discussion will always arise to insure the best price per performance is addressed.  With the technology advancing at such a rapid rate ICs are being release on a regular basis to eliminate support ICs as well as reduce design and testing time.  There are pros and cons with all designs and they have to be addressed.  The approach we are applying in the development of the ITF is flexibility and programmability and separating the front end sensing to separate IC(s).

Create a Preliminary Timing Diagram
As we stated before creating a preliminary timing diagram of the expected performance takes some practice and is always recommended for speeds that get close to the limits of the CPLD and will aid in troubleshooting timing propagation delays after programming.  Figure 21.0 is the preliminary timing diagram for CPLD #2 and as we see it would require capturing the data in a 5 ns window in order to be ready for processing in 10ns.

The other issue is as we review the pin count it appears that will not be room to incorporate the designs for the serial ports, hence, the SPI, I2C and QSPI types of protocols.  We could always incorporate a third CPLD, however it may be better to actually use the 16 bit interface and create the serial interface CPLD as an actual IoT Platform serial Interface then use the IFT to test the data transfer for the IoT Peripheral device itself.  Remember the IoT Platform I/O will remain a constant while the processors evolve. The expectations is to design a 10ns data throughput interface with the maximum data width possible.

Figure 21.0   CPLD #2  Preliminary Timing Diagram

From the IDE functional block diagram in Part-20 and the Preliminary timing diagram above we should be able to easily create the simulated IDE logic timing diagram with all the delays and the DMA performance for CPLD #2.  The IDE release 19.1 Quartus Prime Lite Edition for the CPLD is available for download in the Reference section below.  We will use an older release 9.1sp1 for this design for the time being since we have not had the time to fully evaluate the new release and test the differences that have been completed to date. To keep this consistent we will recompile later after the design is complete and compare the differences in releases.  Prior to Intel/Altera M&A Altera several of the releases of Quartus Web incorporated sets of different CPLDs and selected FPGA and they recommended that you use the release that is required for the device of choice, however a lot has changed since Intel is now merging this with their product line.  We have to look at redesigning several in-house devices since they were discontinued that has caused some issues in the lab as many R&D labs have encountered.  

During the timing setup a few design issues came up that have to be addressed.  The Functional block diagram is correct, however the implementation of the design has limitations and will not meet the expected throughput.  So what is missing for the CPLD #2 design that should have been presented at this time.  Lets take a look at what preliminary design procedure requirements for CPLD #2.

We have the following completed

OK, what we have left out is the preliminary functions I/O Register Map assignments.   Why do we want to do this prior to the design, well, since we did not create it on a spreadsheet the programmer will have to figure this out, not a good idea.  What could possibly go wrong if we just do it later? The black hole cliche of all times.  So lets complete the process requirements, it is easy to just not use a bit in a register than it is to try and add one later.

There are many schools of thought on register implementation for peripherals and there are same implementations that make it extremely challenging for software to get around and are not recommended.  Some general guidelines of register implementation to follow that insures a hardware/software balance.:

Following these guidelines allows the software configuration to be grouped in a contained block of memory to be easily programmed and viewed.  The register sets for CPLD #2 are all eight bit (byte) registers to meet the pin count of the 144 pin CPLD and leave a few pins for modifications.  A good rule of thumb to follow is always try and stay below 80% of the available capacity of the device using to allow manual changes to the routing to address unique propagation delays..

Peripheral Control/Status Register = 8 Bits - 1 byte wide register

From the above list CPLD #2 requires 14 byte wide registers for setting up the peripherals functions as well as the 14 control lines to load each of these registers. This is a good place to start.  The front end of CPLD #2 for the Register set would require 5 bits to address the uo to 32 registers and control strobe lines combined to initiate the device manually and set the different mode configurations.

CPLD Simple Propagation Delay Test
In Part-14 we touched lightly on the internals of the CPLD connection matrix and the internal Logic Element blocks. This is one of the areas that many talented engineers are stilled challenged with and it is not going away either. It is the internal connection matrix that contributes to those propagation delays that make or break a design.  Just because a design works with the fastest speed device and you are below or within the lower speed device parameters that costs less does not mean the lower speed device will work the same way.  Connections matrix is a large contributor to propagation delays however complexity and available Logic Element gates and where they are between Logic Element blocks adds to the interconnection issues.  Here in the lab we have experienced this many times where we pushed the CPLD to 90% of resources and changed speeds and still had to redesign the CPLD to make it work.  Now take this understanding and think you can easily change manufacturers or CPLD series and expect it to perform the same or better without real world testing.  One of the areas we have found to be root cause of failure is with major bit shift switching from 111100001111.  The matrix in a CPLD are not neat and organized as if you would hand wire it, they are routed via an algorithm similar to auto route in a PCB and that can get cluttered.

The typical misconception with programmable logic devices from engineers and engineering managers that have not had the opportunity to actually design with them is "Oh, just make changes to the CPLD/FPGA and we do not have to run a new PCB", well folks that is not a good thought process to be transmitting.  As we will see below the same design acts completely different with just a change of the device speed and nothing else.  Propagation delays are variable depending on the complexity of the design.  Internal noise (crosstalk) with adjacent interconnection planes can cause false triggering and other types of spikes throughout the device.

Ok, now that we have created a preliminary timing diagram for CPLD#2 of the critical data flow of the memory data I/O it is time to encourage good design behavior when designing with CPLDs and FPGAs.  A good general practice when designing with CPLDs or FPGAs is to test the waters on speed and general throughput when attempting to push the limits.  Sometimes boolean logic just seams illogical when it comes to connecting points in a CPLD and FPGA matrix.  To Test the CPLD being used, a simple circuit was compiled and simulated to show the timing diagram of the functions shown in Figure 21,1 incorporating a simple pipeline binary decoder 1 bit to 2 line and 2bit to 4 line decoders with an gated clock.

Figure 21.1   CPLD #2  Speed Test Function

The expected digital sequence for this design is shown in Figure 21.2 and is a basic binary decoder 2 and 4 line with a front end latch for one clock delay.  The front end latch is to insure that the decoder input is presented with the binary bits all at the same time in order to eliminate spikes that will cause other timing issues.  The GateEN is the standard D-Type F/F and it operates on the rising edge of the clock and is expected to respond in less than 1ns.  Figure 21.2 shows what is expected and the simulation results Figure 21.3 and 21.4 are two different results.  This is one of the reasons it is encouraged to create an expected digital timing diagram when ever possible prior to actually using the IDE to design the CPLD or FPGA.  Over the years we have found that the simulation process with IDE's does perform well, however being able to simulate all functions for the design is where many fall short and the problems show up in real world application after the product is on the market.

Figure 21.2   CPLD #2  Pre-Timing Diagram Expected 

To start the highest speed CPLD available was selected for the simulation for the test design in Figure 21.1.  Figure 21.3 shows the simulated timing for the 144 pin device selected.  To understand the propagation effects of speed to configuration of the CPLD we will run the same timing simulation but with the slower device.  The CPLD The actual part for this simulation test is the EPM1270T144C3 for the fastest speed and EPM1270T144C5 for the slowest speed both handle speeds faster than 10ns.

Figure 21.3   CPLD #2  Speed Test Simulated Timing Fastest Device (C3) 1270LE Timing

Observing the two timing diagrams we easily see that the device becomes unstable at the same frequency.  When we look at the pin to pin delays for the different speed devices C3 vs C5 we get 6.3ns and 10.1ns respectively.

Figure 21.4   CPLD #2  Speed Test Simulated Timing Slow Device (C5) 1270LE

Keeping the same design just changing from a 1270 Logic Element device to a 570 element device Form Fit Function the results for the C3 devices are also very different as shown in Figure 21.5 below.  The MAX-II EPM1270T144C3 and the EPM570T144C3 are form fit pin interchangeable however the performance differ greatly with just a simple design configuration.  Timing changes with complexity and pin assignments as well.  When we look at the pin to pin delays for the different architecture 1270LE C3 vs 570LE C3 speed devices we get 6.3ns and 5.5ns respectively.

Figure 21.5   CPLD #2  Speed Test Simulated Timing Fast Device (C3) 570LE

The question is what is the stable operating frequency for the devices.  We ran a series of test frequencies from 10ns to 1ns clocks  and the high speed device was selected as well as adding some delay functions in the clock line.  When you get below 10 ns it is very typical that you will run into propagation delay issues when as the available LEs (Logic Elements) of the CPLD become part of the design.  The experience we have seen here in the lab is every unique interconnecting trace adds about 0.4ns delay so if you have to go through 3 unique interconnects before you get to the pin you already exceeded the clock time of 1.5 ns for a 3ns clock cycle as shown in the timing diagrams.  Looking at Figure 21.4 we see that the propagation delays for DOUT2 exceed the clock and the output is completely missing.   Also DOUTA and DOUTB overlap which would cause other timing issues if DOUTB must start after DOUTA ends.  OK, now think of the fact that manufacturers make design updates to these devices at random. This makes interchangeability a very risky business for critical reliability devices.

There are ways to compartmentalize the design and keep the I/O ports for the section close to the LE and not split them between several LEs.  After thought additions is where the problems arise the most since the addition may have to reconfigure the CPLD differentially to accommodate the functionality designed in and the device becomes unstable.  The in-depth analysis of CPLDs and FPGAs go beyond the scope of this blog series however, it is important to present some of the challenges attributed to CPLD design when designing peripherals since the majority of designs today incorporate some from of programmable logic.  As a refresher on why the 144 pin CPLD was selected, mainly because it has been around for many years, designed into many devices with no end of life in sight at this time.  The MAX II and the MAX V are 2 different pins, MAX-II has 116 I/O pins and MAX-V has 114 pins.  We have not tested the performance or Form Fit Function physically in the lab since all our designs use the MAX-II and the devices are still readily available for all levels of designs.   Although the selected device is more costly the choice for same performance the MAX-II EPM1270T144C3 is the one we will use for this design. If this were going into a large volume product a separate PCB attached to the ITF could be used to AQL (Acceptable Quality Limit) evaluation of devices per lot.

Register & Bit Assignments
The correct design sequence is to create the CPLD #2 register map first, then create the bit assignments for each register prior to the actual design of the CPDL.  Yes, we did this backwards not just to show the time it requires to undo the design then implement the new updates, but in this case we attempted to try and reuse some of the assignments from the reuse design library.  The reuse design was taken from another project that involved a memory buffer.  Well the implement of the reuse parts and adding some functions that are required for this design just added more delays which  from several years experience with timing delays it would be better to just redesign the CPLD from scratch..  This is typical of many reuse scenarios and will now cost more time to undo and redo the design, this is our learning curve on using a design that are close to what we wanted but not exact.  Also when we canalized the propagation delays the throughput transfer speed also fell short of the expectations.  

The Register and Bit Assignments will be presented in Part-22 of the series along with spreadsheet templates.

How to Obtain a Finished ITF:
Our plans when the ITF is finished, is to offer an ITF to the public that has many more features than the one being developed for this presentation.  We already have completed two different PoD products to get ready for manufacturing and offering custom development for contract manufacturing companies and the entrepreneur small company that want to setup a development test base for future and present development contracts.  Please use the BASIL Networks Contact Form to be put on a mailing list when we are ready to supply the manufacturing prints if you are interested in purchasing the entire system manufactured and tested.


OK, this is a lot to present in a single part as with most of the parts of this series as we dive deeper into the designing devices.  The reuse of similar designs has it pros and cons, in this case it was a con since the timing of the design caused the redesign of the interface.  In many cases modifying a design ends up taking longer and incorporates less functionally that would have been to have the flexibility and freedom to do the design from scratch.  Many discussions with senior engineers and innovators have confirmed this through the years.  The difficulty lies with those that make the decision for the engineer and have not been in the design field for some time.  There is no disrespect meant with that statement, it is just a fact of human nature that when you are away from the details for a while you only focus on the results and not the process to get there; and by the way, as it should be, however when the facts are put on the table those managers (leaders) trust those that are at the detailed level and follow that lead and tend to managing the project.  This behavior of trusting the front line knowledge has been a proven process for a successful project development.  So, why would you have high level knowledgeable individuals on a field of interest drawing a salary and not listen to them? Cool that works the majority of the time and is what a responsible team is not only required but is how a team is expected to perform. It has been said by many of lecturers through the industry from different fields "Engineers design and build cities, Managers run them after they are built".  Ok, end of lecture to encourage engineering and managerial behavior

Updating and Modifying CPLDs / FPGAs
Here in the lab we have been very fortunate until just recently that our internally designed and developed test fixtures have stood the test of time for almost 20 year.  We still have some XP systems still running mainly due to third party PCI cards that will not run in any of our Windows 10 x64 Enterprise systems with PCI slots.  Some of our internally developed test equipment that incorporate discontinued CPLDs have to be redesigned.  When we looked at the replacement cost of some COTS instrumentation the lab requirements were just not available in a single product as well as the price being out of the expected budget.  The best approach is still to design the test fixtures to meet our needs with components that are anticipated to be around several years.

As shown in the above in Figures 21.1.through 21.5 FFF (Form, Fit, Function) does work but not exactly the same propagation delays add a high risk for critical equipment. This FFF discontinuity is also effective by revision changes in the IC itself.  Several programmable logic IC manufacturers have pin-to-pin replacement for their series of CPLDs, however think of a revision change in one of the devices that are labeled FFF in the series and is changed out for more LE's  or to add to that a different manufacturer and a new PCB layout.  We all get the picture now; so what is the solution.?  Building a physical prototype and test, test and test again for all functionality.   

Over the years the major contributions to the timing and propagation issues were designs focused for the selected CPLD / FPGA series that approached the maximum resources available in the device. This contributed to major carry glitches usually four bit and above blocks  111100001111 along with the data path within the interconnecting matrix for the chip.  As we see the FFF factor sort of falls from the rooftop of a tall building when upgrading to the next pin interchangeable device in the series.  What we also be noticed is using actual I/O pins as test points in the simulation since they are also routed through the connections matrix, when removed from the final design the device also performs different.  Many engineers use internal pin assigned names that are simulated at the point inside the chip that are picked which will change the timing as well.  The big pro of programmable logic devices is that you can change the design of a device and use the same PCB.  A major con of programmable logic devices is that the propagation times change as the density changes for the application and compensation gates have to be added to insure stability and functionality of the device.

This update to the ITF section adds a single channel DMA controller that is shared as a Digital Logic Analyse for monitoring CPU BUS timing.  This becomes a very useful reuse design since not all designs will survive the reuse environment as we mentioned previously, only about 5% will be a true total Plug'N'Play reuse.  Experience has shown that FPGA and CPLD designs that incorporate the simplest of modifications have the risk of reduced performance, it is the nature of the beast.  We selected the larger of the MAX-II Logic Units to allow optimization and future additions if required.

Quartus 9.1 to Prime Lite 19.1 Timing simulation comparison:
The timing test was run on Release 9.1 and 19.1 the results were different for the same tests.  Release 19.1 has better routing optimization and also allows both functional and timing simulation that concur with both devices in the same family and speeds.  This is a good thing since we will be updating to release 19.1 when we update the custom equipment in the lab.  These are important issues for all in house equipment since we have talk to several labs some still running XP and are forced to remain on older versions.  An update will be presented as we continue to test and replace obsolete CPLD and FPGA devices

CPLD Register Identification
Since we neglected this because of the Reuse factor the thought was since the design matrix was already defined prior all that would have to be done is reassigning the bits for each register.  Well renaming the registers and bits did not turn out as expected and, oh by the way to make it clear; "It Very Seldom Does work as expected."  So, re-mapping the registers is required, that ok, however the complexities became clear that re-mapping lead to changing functions sequences and that lead to other changes and it soon became obvious when we started modifying the design the 50% mark of changes were present and the end is not clear.  At that point purely by experience it was decided to just start from scratch and layout the CPLD to fit the application with a few spare I/O pins for future growth.  In this reuse case it was fortunate that the redesign was recognized early before many man hours of troubleshooting and development were lost.

Final Note
Changing poor engineering habits are difficult however not impossible to correct.   Humans are very flexible they all have the ability of learning anything with applied effort, the only impasse is the mind set that if negative will defeat any attempt to grow and instill fear of learning.  The key is to acknowledge the initial behavior, no it will not change overnight - it took a while to become rooted.  Bringing the development behavior to the surface and acknowledging the behavior is the first step in this series to bring the development process to a winning level.   The expectations of this and other series on the blog is to encourage the behavioral changes as well as present a project that is useful for many applications.  Behavioral modifications is a personal and private process that takes time and requires trust within ones self.  

As the series progresses the author, Sal Tuzzo will be available for discussion through the BASIL Networks Contact Form for those that want to apply this series to conduct their own experiments.  I will always be appreciative for the private comments sent through the contact form for suggestions and advice during the development of this series.  This is a growing opportunity for everyone entering into product development as well as a great review for us "well seasoned" in the field to just refresh our human DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory).

It is recommended for those that have specific questions to use the BASIL Networks Contact Form for questions to separate them from getting lost in the general comments for each blog presentation.  For all specific design request or contracts please feel free to contact me.

Reference Links:

ITF Selected Components

MAX-II EPM1270T144C5  Pin Assignment Template

BOM Spreadsheet and Component datasheets ZIP file

PGA281 Programmable gain Amplifier Datasheet
IS66WVE4M16EBLL 64Mbit (4M x16) Pseudo SRAM Datasheet
Alliance Memory AS1C8M16PL 128Mbit (8Meg x16) Pseudo SRAM

Intel®/Altera® Quartus Download 9.1 sp2 from Archives
Intel®/Altera® Quartus Lite 19.x Download

Requirements Traceability Matrix  (RTM)
Project Management
Mezzanine Board

The majority of Internet scheme and protocol information are from a few open public information sources on the net, IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) RFC's that explain details on the application of the protocols used for both IPv4 and IPv6 as well as experimental protocols for the next generation Internet and the Network Sorcery web site.  The remaining of this series on the IoT platform will be from BASIL Networks MDM (Modular Design Methodology) applied with the Socratic teaching method.   Thank You - expand your horizon- Sal Tuzzo

Network Sorcery:
The Internet Engineering task Force: IETF - RFC references

Memory Segmentation
The Memory Management Unit (MMU)
Virtual Address Space
Virtual Addresses and Page Tables
Extended Memory

Previous Part 20 IoT Core Platform - Peripheral I/O Development - Peripheral Device Real World Testing -Continued(Nov  3rd, 2019)



Publishing this series on a website or reprinting is authorized by displaying the following, including the hyperlink to BASIL Networks, PLLC either at the beginning or end of each part.
BASIL Networks, PLLC - Internet of Things (IoT) -Security, Privacy, Safety-The Information Playground Part-21 Peripheral I/O Design - Peripheral Devices- Real World Testing - (Mar 24, 2020)

For Website Link cut and paste this code:

<p><a href="" target="_blank">BASIL Networks, PLLC - Internet of Things (IoT) -Security, Privacy, Safety-The Information Playground Part-21 Peripheral I/O Development:-<i>Real World Testing (Mar 24, &nbsp;2020)</i></a></p>



Sal (JT) Tuzzo - Founder CEO/CTO BASIL Networks, PLLC.
Sal may be contacted directly through this sites Contact Form or
through LinkedIn

Add comment
Add comment

Rest assured, your post or comment has been received, and is simply waiting to be approved. Comments and posts are moderated to prevent spam - this results in a slight delay until you see it posted. Please check back soon. Thank you!

Complete Captcha to add comment 6738289 -Please enter the code shown and click Send.
Copyright© 1990-2019 BASIL Networks, PLLC. All rights reserved