Multi-Sharc architecture

Started by Jerome December 8, 2004
Right, we evaluated our application to fit in 4x 21262, using other
smaller dsp will not do the job.
I guess I'm not the first guy to use a multi sharc architecture based
on 21262 dsps !
Any block diagrams available ?
thanks
Jerome
Jerome wrote:
> Right, we evaluated our application to fit in 4x 21262, using other > smaller dsp will not do the job. > I guess I'm not the first guy to use a multi sharc architecture based > on 21262 dsps !
You might well be. The 212xx and 213xx are due to lack of link ports not really suited for multiprocessing. Better are 21161 and TigerSharcs - beware that none of the TigerSharcs have any serial ports. I'm not sure, does the 212xx support cluster processing? Regards, Andor
"Andor Bariska" <an2or@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:41b6fe8d$1@news1.ethz.ch...
> Jerome wrote: > > Right, we evaluated our application to fit in 4x 21262, using other > > smaller dsp will not do the job. > > I guess I'm not the first guy to use a multi sharc architecture based > > on 21262 dsps ! > > You might well be. The 212xx and 213xx are due to lack of link ports not > really suited for multiprocessing. Better are 21161 and TigerSharcs - > beware that none of the TigerSharcs have any serial ports. > > I'm not sure, does the 212xx support cluster processing?
It looks like the 21262 doesn't have much if any support for multiprocessing. There are no link ports and none of the shared bus/arbitration features found in the other parts. I think they are gearing it toward audio applications where all the processing can fit in one chip. If you really want to use this chip, your best bet is to use the serial ports to exchange data between the various DSPs. You could create a ring architecture Or since each chip has 6 serial ports, there are enough for each one to have two direct connections to the other 3, which would give you simple bi-directional communication between any pair of DSPs. Hopefully the serial port bandwidth is high enough for the amount of data you need to send between the chips. The chip also has a parallel port for interfacing to "external memory devices". Maybe that could be adapted to communicate between chips? I don't know enough about that feature to say, not having used that chip before. But you could also use a shared memory to pass messages and data between the chips.
"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:31p02kF3el3o6U1@individual.net: 

> "Andor Bariska" <an2or@nospam.net> wrote in message > news:41b6fe8d$1@news1.ethz.ch... >> Jerome wrote: >> > Right, we evaluated our application to fit in 4x 21262, using other >> > smaller dsp will not do the job. >> > I guess I'm not the first guy to use a multi sharc architecture >> > based on 21262 dsps ! >> >> You might well be. The 212xx and 213xx are due to lack of link ports >> not really suited for multiprocessing. Better are 21161 and >> TigerSharcs - beware that none of the TigerSharcs have any serial >> ports. >> >> I'm not sure, does the 212xx support cluster processing? > > It looks like the 21262 doesn't have much if any support for > multiprocessing. There are no link ports and none of the shared > bus/arbitration features found in the other parts. I think they are > gearing it toward audio applications where all the processing can fit > in one chip.
The 21262 and 21364 do not have direct support for multiprocessing. However, they are considerably faster that the earlier SHARCs. A ADSP- 21364 is probably about the same speed as four ADSP-21161 devices.
> > If you really want to use this chip, your best bet is to use the > serial ports to exchange data between the various DSPs. You could > create a ring architecture Or since each chip has 6 serial ports, > there are enough for each one to have two direct connections to the > other 3, which would give you simple bi-directional communication > between any pair of DSPs. Hopefully the serial port bandwidth is high > enough for the amount of data you need to send between the chips.
I concur that multiprocessing on the 21262 would probably be best using SPORTS. You might consider some form of TDM as another alternative to Jon's idea. SPORTs operate at 50 MBits/s on the 21262 (assuming 200MHz core clock).
> > The chip also has a parallel port for interfacing to "external memory > devices". Maybe that could be adapted to communicate between chips? I > don't know enough about that feature to say, not having used that chip > before. But you could also use a shared memory to pass messages and > data between the chips. >
There is also the PDAP interface available from the parallel port or the DAI. You might write data via a PP and receive via the PDAP. We have a new building block module, our dspblok 2126x or dspblok 21364 that includes an FPGA that could also be used for interconnects. This is a very new product that will be released next month. ADI has also announced the ADSP-21368 that has muiltiprocessor support. It won't be sampling until at next summer. -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
"Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B99ED8826BFaclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30...
> > ADI has also announced the ADSP-21368 that has muiltiprocessor support. > It won't be sampling until at next summer.
Looks like a real screamer! Wonder what it will cost? I'm still waiting for my "perfect SHARC"--link ports, multiprocessing, built-in SDRAM controller, and 300-400MHz clock speed. I might be able to live without the links and use the SPORTs instead if everything else was there. Might be a long wait, I'm afraid. :-)
"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:31pe45F3el4peU1@individual.net: 

> "Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message > news:Xns95B99ED8826BFaclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30... >> >> ADI has also announced the ADSP-21368 that has muiltiprocessor >> support. It won't be sampling until at next summer. > > Looks like a real screamer! Wonder what it will cost? I'm still > waiting for my "perfect SHARC"--link ports, multiprocessing, built-in > SDRAM controller, and 300-400MHz clock speed. I might be able to live > without the links and use the SPORTs instead if everything else was > there.
Might be a long wait, I'm afraid.
>:-) > > >
Not so long, We plan to have the very first general purpose board available. (We were first with the ADSP-21262) If you are interested in the newer SHARCs, you might want to check out our roadmap: http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=roadmap There are also links to ADI's roadmap and new product announcements. -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
"Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B9B196B3FEBaclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30...
> "Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in > news:31pe45F3el4peU1@individual.net: > > > "Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message > > news:Xns95B99ED8826BFaclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30... > >> > >> ADI has also announced the ADSP-21368 that has muiltiprocessor > >> support. It won't be sampling until at next summer. > > > > Looks like a real screamer! Wonder what it will cost? I'm still > > waiting for my "perfect SHARC"--link ports, multiprocessing, built-in > > SDRAM controller, and 300-400MHz clock speed. I might be able to live > > without the links and use the SPORTs instead if everything else was > > there. > > Might be a long wait, I'm afraid. > > > > Not so long, > > We plan to have the very first general purpose board available. (We were > first with the ADSP-21262) > > If you are interested in the newer SHARCs, you might want to check out > our roadmap: > > http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=roadmap > > There are also links to ADI's roadmap and new product announcements.
Thanks, Al. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything that fits my wish list either on your site or ADI product map. In particular, the lack of SDRAM controller is a major problem for us and the lack of link ports is a smaller problem as well.
"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:31pj9lF3ed0f8U1@individual.net: 

> "Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message > news:Xns95B9B196B3FEBaclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30... >> "Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in >> news:31pe45F3el4peU1@individual.net: >> >> > "Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message >> > news:Xns95B99ED8826BFaclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30... >> >> >> >> ADI has also announced the ADSP-21368 that has muiltiprocessor >> >> support. It won't be sampling until at next summer. >> > >> > Looks like a real screamer! Wonder what it will cost? I'm still >> > waiting for my "perfect SHARC"--link ports, multiprocessing, >> > built-in SDRAM controller, and 300-400MHz clock speed. I might be >> > able to live without the links and use the SPORTs instead if >> > everything else was there. >> >> Might be a long wait, I'm afraid. >> > >> >> Not so long, >> >> We plan to have the very first general purpose board available. (We >> were first with the ADSP-21262) >> >> If you are interested in the newer SHARCs, you might want to check >> out our roadmap: >> >> http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=roadmap >> >> There are also links to ADI's roadmap and new product announcements. > > Thanks, Al. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything that fits my > wish list either on your site or ADI product map. In particular, the > lack of SDRAM controller is a major problem for us and the lack of > link ports is a smaller problem as well. > > >
The ADSP-21367 & 21368 include an SDRAM controller. Think of the new parts as a hybrid between the 21161 and 21364. We have new boards coming soon (not on the roadmap or web site) that include an FPGA and SDRAM. -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
Jon Harris wrote:
...
> particular, the lack of SDRAM controller is a major problem for us
... Say Jon, I've always wondered: who is us? Regards, Andor
"Al Clark" <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B9F35504C2Baclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30...
> "Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in > news:31pj9lF3ed0f8U1@individual.net: > > > The ADSP-21367 & 21368 include an SDRAM controller. Think of the new > parts as a hybrid between the 21161 and 21364. > > We have new boards coming soon (not on the roadmap or web site) that > include an FPGA and SDRAM.
Thanks, Al! Somehow I missed the SDRAM controller feature when I looked at those parts. If you don't mind me asking, what is the difference between the '67 and '68? The selection table doesn't show any differences except for package.