[UrJTAG-dev] Added support for Kintex 7 xc7k325t-ffg900 chip

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

[UrJTAG-dev] Added support for Kintex 7 xc7k325t-ffg900 chip

Wojciech Zabolotny

DISCLAIMER: The procedure described below may be risky, as the source BSDL file had to be modified. There is a risk, that removed sections contain information important for safe control of the FPGA via JTAG. If you are going to use the described procedure, you do it ON YOUR OWN RISK!

I had to use UrJTAG with our boards based on Kintex 7 xc7K325t-ffg900 chip. Unfortunately this chip was not supported by UrJTAG.
I tried to generate the "jtag" file from the xc7k325t_ffg900.bsd provided with Xilinx Vivado, but it resulted in error:

bsdl2jtag xc7k325t_ffg900.bsd xc7k325t_ffg900
error: -E- error: In Package STD_1149_6_2003, Line 755, Error in User-Defined Package declarations.
error: -E- error: BSDL file 'xc7k325t_ffg900.bsd' contains errors in VHDL stage, stopping
error: system error: Success Cannot open file STD_1149_6_2003 or /usr/local/wzab/urjtag/share/urjtag/bsdl/STD_1149_6_2003

I have removed the line 755:

use STD_1149_6_2003.all;

And then, retrying the conversion, I had to remove yet some sections:
1. The one starting from (near to line 1407):
> attribute PORT_GROUPING of XC7K325T_FFG900 : entity is
> "(MGTXRXP0_115, MGTXRXN0_115), " &
> [...]

2. The one starting from (near to line 3193):

> attribute AIO_COMPONENT_CONFORMANCE of XC7K325T_FFG900 : entity is

>       "STD_1149_6_2003";
> attribute AIO_EXTEST_Pulse_Execution of XC7K325T_FFG900 : entity is
>       "Wait_Duration TCK 15";
> attribute AIO_EXTEST_Train_Execution of XC7K325T_FFG900 : entity is
>       "train 30, maximum_time 120.0e-6";
> attribute AIO_Pin_Behavior of XC7K325T_FFG900 : entity is
> "MGTXRXP0_115 : LP_time=22.5e-9 HP_time=45.0e-9; " &
> "MGTXRXP0_116 : LP_time=22.5e-9 HP_time=45.0e-9; " &
> [...]

Afterwards the file converted cleanly, and UrJTAG was able to recognize the chip.

Of course there is a risk, that removal of certain incompatible sections may result in improper control of chip via JTAG, which may lead to destruction of the chip.
I don't fully understand meaning of removed sections, so I do not provide any warranty, that the described procedure is safe.
If you are going to use it, you do it on your own risk.

With best regards,

Wojciech M. Zabołotny
My GPG/PGP keys:
standard: 8192R/FE58A848 (0720 9430 85DB 7CCD F4C5  5F1E 5107 91FB FE58 A848)
confidential: 16384R/C76D2FB0 (C4E7 9597 CF22 7B5D 28BF  4656 FED7 A63F C76D 2FB0)

One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
UrJTAG-development mailing list
[hidden email]

urjtag-added-xc7k325t-ffg900.patch.gz (14K) Download Attachment