[time-nuts] DMTD to MMTD

[Magnus Danielson]

Bruce Griffiths wrote:
> Magnus Danielson wrote:
>> Bruce Griffiths wrote:
>>> Lux, Jim (337C) wrote:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com 
>>>>> [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at febo.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Griffiths
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 2:10 PM
>>>>> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>>>>> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] DMTD to MMTD
>>>>>
>>>>> The latest version actually records time stamps from a continuously
>>>>> running counter clocked at some at a constant frequency (100Mhz??)for
>>>>> all channels simultaneously.
>>>>> They may use a flag bit for each for each channel to indicate to which
>>>>> channel or channels the zero crossing time stamp belongs.
>>>> Simpler than that.. it grabs 20 bit numbers and shoves them out in 
>>>> ASCII over a com port with an indication of which channel it was for.
>>>> The FPGA has a 20 bit free running counter at 100 MHz. When an input 
>>>> changes state, it latches the counter, and shoves it out along with 
>>>> the channel number.  They use an offset frequency>100 Hz so that you 
>>>> don't have to disambiguate the counter rollovers. (20 bits rolls 
>>>> over every 10+milliseconds counting at 100 MHz)
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if there's a FIFO in front of the UART (e.g. what if 
>>>> you get simultaneous zero crossings).. but I would expect there is.
>>>>
>>>> The "hard work" is in the zero crossing detector ahead of the FPGA. 
>>>> (and perhaps in the latching of the ZCD inputs into the FPGA).
>>>>
>>>> Given how long ago it was made, that FPGA isn't a huge one.
>>>>
>>> Using 8 flag bits (one per channel) together with the associated time 
>>> stamp is a little more efficient and very easy to do and it doesn't 
>>> require a FIFO to ensure that simultaneous zero crossings aren't missed.
>>
>> It doesn't help at all for this application. The 8 channels is more 
>> likely to be spread out and as Jim pointed out, the next bin is 
>> sufficient for needing a unique time-stamp. The flag-solution is less 
>> efficient (8 bits rather than 3) and the FIFO need is always there, 
>> but may be implemented in various ways. For the flag system to be 
>> efficient, a high probability for the same time-bins to be used needs 
>> to exist, and a high resolution system can expect to actually see 
>> noise spread out the channels over the time-bins.
>>
> Depending on the system constraints it may be the difference between 
> being able to do implement it or not.

With your clarifying comment yes... because it is until now that you 
have clarified the merit of the flag system, lowered implementation 
complexity vs. lowered signalling capacity.

>> A DMTD systems have a low rate of events per channel, but the nominal 
>> distance of events for each channel is fairly long, worst-case burst 
>> is when all channels time-stamps. For a 100 Hz beating and 100 MHz 
>> clock, the nominal rate of rise/fall events is 200 Hz or 5 ms. Letting 
>> the locked value stay put for at least 4 ms. If all channels could be 
>> emptied within these 4 ms (just another way of saying that it has 
>> enough transport capacity) then a fairly simple schedule system can 
>> loop through the channels to find a new sample to transmit.
>>
>> I think the re-occurring flag system should be put to rest, it doesn't 
>> contribute and is a red herring, at least for this application.
>>
> Nonsense, it requires simpler logic and for a device with limited 
> internal connection/routing capability and a large number of channels 
> the data path interconnections may be simpler and easier to route. It 
> may also run with a higher clock frequency.
> 
> It should even be possible to impement in a relatively small CPLD albeit 
> with an external FIFO or equivalent (eg a PPI port on a Blackfin DSP).
> Each additional channels requires one input pin, one output pin, a 2 bit 
> synchroniser and a 1 bit wider data path and little else.

But it produces more data, which was what I was commenting on. Indeed it 
is very simple to implement, but it's a complexity which is still on the 
low-end.

So, finally you made the point of the merit of the approach in such a 
way that it became clear to me why you have maintained that standpoint.

Cheers,
Magnus