There are 4 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 0 to 4.
Hi all, I have this doubt in implementation of viterbi decoder in FPGA While the trace-back unit decodes the single bit after tracing back the path of length 5*L, next input to the viterbi decoder should not be given. But if the input data is continuous, trace-back operation should be completed within single clock input period. So to fulfil the above requirement,i considered a clock for trace-back unit of 5*L times faster than input clock and it is working fine. Is this the correct way of implementing or is there an alternate implementation possible with using trace-back unit clock of same period as input clock. I referred few IP cores like xilinx, Altera, Lattice,etc on this info. But nowhere this delay of 5*L clock cyles is specified or usage of higher clock frequency is mentioned.______________________________
san_jack wrote: > Hi all, > > I have this doubt in implementation of viterbi decoder in FPGA > > While the trace-back unit decodes the single bit after tracing back the > path of length 5*L, next input to the viterbi decoder should not be given. > But if the input data is continuous, trace-back operation should be > completed within single clock input period. Yes. > So to fulfil the above requirement,i considered a clock for trace-back > unit of 5*L times faster than input clock and it is working fine. Is this > the correct way of implementing or is there an alternate implementation > possible with using trace-back unit clock of same period as input clock. ???? You don't have to do the full 5L retrace. You only have to update all paths by one step. > I referred few IP cores like xilinx, Altera, Lattice,etc on this info. But > nowhere this delay of 5*L clock cyles is specified or usage of higher clock > frequency is mentioned. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com______________________________
>But as per the viterbi algorithm, traverse of trace-back for 5,6 times of constraint length yields the correct decoded path. So for decoding each bit I should traverse minimum 5L paths. > >san_jack wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I have this doubt in implementation of viterbi decoder in FPGA >> >> While the trace-back unit decodes the single bit after tracing back the >> path of length 5*L, next input to the viterbi decoder should not be given. >> But if the input data is continuous, trace-back operation should be >> completed within single clock input period. > >Yes. > >> So to fulfil the above requirement,i considered a clock for trace-back >> unit of 5*L times faster than input clock and it is working fine. Is this >> the correct way of implementing or is there an alternate implementation >> possible with using trace-back unit clock of same period as input clock. > >???? >You don't have to do the full 5L retrace. You only have to update all >paths by one step. > >> I referred few IP cores like xilinx, Altera, Lattice,etc on this info. But >> nowhere this delay of 5*L clock cyles is specified or usage of higher clock >> frequency is mentioned. > >Vladimir Vassilevsky >DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant >http://www.abvolt.com >______________________________
san_jack wrote: >>But as per the viterbi algorithm, traverse of trace-back for 5,6 times of > > constraint length yields the correct decoded path. So for decoding each bit > I should traverse minimum 5L paths. > > >>san_jack wrote: >> >> >>>Hi all, >>> >>> I have this doubt in implementation of viterbi decoder in FPGA >>> >>> While the trace-back unit decodes the single bit after tracing back > > the > >>>path of length 5*L, next input to the viterbi decoder should not be > > given. > >>>But if the input data is continuous, trace-back operation should be >>>completed within single clock input period. >> >>Yes. >> >> >>> So to fulfil the above requirement,i considered a clock for > > trace-back > >>>unit of 5*L times faster than input clock and it is working fine. Is > > this > >>>the correct way of implementing or is there an alternate > > implementation > >>>possible with using trace-back unit clock of same period as input > > clock. > >>???? >>You don't have to do the full 5L retrace. You only have to update all >>paths by one step. >> >> >>>I referred few IP cores like xilinx, Altera, Lattice,etc on this info. > > But > >>>nowhere this delay of 5*L clock cyles is specified or usage of higher > > clock > >>>frequency is mentioned. >> >>Vladimir Vassilevsky >>DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant >>http://www.abvolt.com >>______________________________