> 1.) division is not so basic, it takes lots of time
Maybe it isn't synthesizable at all.

> But can I divide using the code above?
For a simulation this will work fine.

> Or do I need to create a complex logic to do so?
There are two ways to do a division:
1. create a big slow combinatorial divider
Altera Quartus does that, but none of the others...
2. create a small slow registered divider
http://www.lothar-miller.de/s9y/archives/29-Division-in-VHDL.html
This is alos the way every FPGA supllier supports by macros...

> My state machine dosen't seem to bo reaching even the first state.
Post your complete code as VHDL attachment. It not able to tell from 
your snippets what goes wrong...

Diogo wrote:
>> Post your complete code as VHDL attachment.
> Here's the entire code
Its not the Code, its whole of the complete project. I had to dig around 
to find the REQUESTED VHDL FILES...  :-/

> But can I divide using the code above?
No. No....

You do not know, what you are doing. On FPGAs you have only flipflops 
and multifunctional combinatorial gates. But you don't hav "delaylines" 
like this:

1

Done :

2

process 

3

begin

4

  if (Fim'event and Fim = '1') then  

5

     Done_Tick <= '1'; wait for 10 ns;  -- only useful for simulation

6

    Done_Tick <= '0';

7

  else 

8

    Done_Tick <= '0';

9

  end if;  

10

end process;

11

[vhdl]

12

And you have plenty of things like this...  :-o

13

This is not synthesizeable, so you can use your code for simulation (maybe) but it will never run on a FPGA as you expect it.

14

15

Did you just do the "hello world!" of hardware (a blinking led) before programming a divider? I would say: No. But I urge you to do so. Its the only way to get a hardware-thinking into your mind.

16

17

So, do a blinking led and post your code. Its just 5 minutes, but you will learn for life... ;-)

18

19

BTW:

20

Use this:

21

[vhdl]

22

library IEEE;

23

use IEEE.std_logic_1164.all;

24

use IEEE.std_logic_unsigned.all;

Or this (much better):

1

library IEEE;

2

use IEEE.std_logic_1164.all;

3

use IEEE.numeric_std.all;

But never both of them together! Because otherwise you can get strange 
behavior due to a double definition of some types.

BTW2:
Give your integers ranges (from xxx to yyy). Here the synthesizer 
assumes a signal 32 bits wide:

1

signal estado_atual : INTEGER := 0;

2

signal prox_estado : INTEGER := 0;

BTW3:
Why do you use such a bunch of variables? Its not neccessary at all...

> I shouldn't be using "wait for" and instead turn it syncronous to the
> clock, right?
Thats the only possibility.

> Also I won't be using this on a FPGA,
So just simulating?
> but I do need the simulation to work.
Then your task is fairly easy. You can use the whole language VHDL, not 
only those little parts of it which are synthesizable...

> Do you beleive the problem with the state machine is conected to the use
> of these time delaying commands?
No, its something like this:

1

   contador := contador + 1;

This "counter" runs in a combinatorial process. And so you created a 
combinational loop (aka. combinatorial loop). And that is a counter 
running without any clock with theoretically maximum speed. But 
practially its just a random noise generator...  :-/

And also:

1

   Done_Tick <= '0';

You cannot assign a value to a signal out of two processes. This will 
result in a driver conflict and you will get 'X' in your simulation...

>  Something like this? ...
Results in the same like this:
> tried it with: ...
And in both cases you will get registered flipflops and get rid of the 
combinational loop.

Of course you will encounter other problems, but to have a closer look 
at them you should post new questions... ;-)