Does SystolicArrayNovelty2 correctly simulate? Internal logic is usually 
optimized away if some inputs or outputs of the design are not 
connected. Is SystolicArrayNovelty2 the toplevel of your design or is it 
embedded in another instance? Have you checked whether all ports are 
connected in the instance above SystolicArrayNovelty2?
You could try to synthesize SystolicArrayNovelty2 alone. If the warnings 
disappear, some ports of SystolicArrayNovelty2 seem not to be connected 
in the next hierarchy level. In Systolic arrays you can easily get 
messed up with the index expressions. Check them and generate a 
schematic of SystolicArrayNovelty2 to see if something is unconnected.

SystolicArrayNovelty2 is my top level design. The ports are all 
connected is shown in the figure. I feel weird because there are no 
warnings for the submodules shown in the previous post

It seems that all blocks are removed that have a connection to clk (so, 
Intermediate_A is not removed). Did you clamp clk to a fixed value 
somewhere?
If so, all registers will be optimized away (since they are useless 
without a clock) and your design will decay into a bunch of unconnected 
combinatorial networks that will be removed afterwards except for pure 
combinatorial paths. That is exactly what we see in the righthand 
schematic.

Check the synthesis log for any message about clocking or removed 
registers.

I didnt set any fix value to clk.

I tried to synthesize the design using Quartus Prime.
All the sub blocks are connected (see figure).
Im using the same coding.

Maybe Xilinx Software have problem?

dayana42200 wrote:
> Maybe Xilinx Software have problem?

Quite unlikely, 14.7 is reported stable since long time. Could you post 
the full code as a zip (possibly with dummy-modules for IntermediateA 
and both Delta-modules). I dont have ISE here but I can try Vivado.
Which FPGA are you targeting?

Ive attached all the verilog code for my design.

In ISE Im using Virtex 6.

You could use any device in Vivado.

Ok, it seems that ISE and Vivado are d'accord. Almost the complete 
design is removed. The reason is that the only output of pe[1] is 
Subsec_out, while DelH and DelIY are not connected (since h[1] and l[1] 
are unconnected).

If you inspect the logic generating SS_out[1] in the schematic you will 
find that is depends only from QueSec and SubSec inputs in a pure 
combinatorial way. So all registers are removed, they are in a dead 
branch of your design and are simply not used.

Things drastically change if you connect h[1] and l[1] to toplevel 
outputs. In this case, nothing is removed, all registers are kept. 
However, none of the registers in your design have any impact on the 
result of SubSec_out. So if SubSec_out is the only result you are 
interested in, the rest will be removed.

I would suggest to go back to simulation. It seems that the logic for 
computing SubSec_out is incomplete.

Btw, your code is structurally quite complicated. Consider to rewrite it 
using less modules. E.g. for DeltaTopSubtract you could write

1

always @(posedge clk)

2

  if (reset=1)

3

     SubtractionOut = 0;

4

  else

5

     SubtractionOut = A-B;

It is usually not meaningful to instantiate arithmetic primitives 
directly, the synthesis will do this for you. Do not try to do the job 
of the tools (sometimes you have to, however). Where possible, write 
down the equation directly. The result is the same but finding problems 
is much easier.

Hi.
Ive tried your suggestion and its working.

I need guidance.

As you know my Systolic Array (SA) design contained 2 Processing 
Elements(PEs).
The PE is design using the attached formula (2018-08-28_10-49-25).
So it has 5 submodule and it is related to one other and I will focus on 
the /Delta Eg(i,j) submodule.

It contain one adder, comparator and subtractor (2018-08-28_10-58-01).
The output value for the adder, comparator and subtractor is correct for 
the first PE but I have a problem for the second PE.
It should be like this (2018-08-28_11-05-31).

Lets focus on the adder (Sync_Rst_TWO_Input_Adder)
So based on the formula, the adder output must be the summation of the 
value above the cell and a constant value.

For example, 5 is the constant value.
So for the first cell, 5 which is the top value and also a 
initialization value is add to 5, the constant value.
As you can see in the waveform (2018-08-24_11-18_24), it is wrong 
because there no the 5 value before the computation starts.
It should be a stream of input 5, 0 and 14 add with constant 5 with the 
output stream of 10, 4 and 19.

So, how can I put a value and it has to be at a stream of number but on 
for one clock cycle?

Hi, I am currently on a holiday trip. I will answer in the next 
week,sorry.

Ok. Happy holiday.

Hi Vancouver.
How was your holiday?
I hope you didnt forget about my question that I posted on 28 August 
2018.
I really need your help.
Hope that you can reply to me as soon as possible.
Thank you.

dayana42200 wrote:
> How was your holiday?

Too short, as usual :-) Sorry for the delay, sure I will try to help 
you.

I tried to understand your problem but I am not sure that I got the 
point. From the waveform I see that the adder works correctly - the 
constant value 5 (input B) is added to each input value. Since there is 
no register inside the adder, the result appears immediately at the 
output.
According to the table 11-05-31, the first input value of the adder 
should be 5 instead of 0 as in the waveform. The non-constant adder 
input is taken from the subtractor output which is 0 in the first step. 
Consider that the subtractor contains a register and has a reset input. 
The register contents will be (usually) 0 after releasing the reset 
input, so the subtractor output is 0 at the the beginning. So it is 
clear that also the adder input is 0 in the first clock cycle after 
reset. Maybe this is the problem?
For clarification you should make a waveform showing the outputs of 
adder, comparator and subtractor of the second PE as well as the PE 
inputs including clk and reset.

Vancouver wrote:

> I tried to understand your problem but I am not sure that I got the
> point. From the waveform I see that the adder works correctly - the
> constant value 5 (input B) is added to each input value. Since there is
> no register inside the adder, the result appears immediately at the
> output.

Correct

> According to the table 11-05-31, the first input value of the adder
> should be 5 instead of 0 as in the waveform.

Based on the table 11-05-31,the addition output is from the A input plus 
constant input B, 5 show in the red box. The value 5, in blue box at the 
top of the table is the initialization value. This value 5 will be used 
as is fixed initialization value for PE1 to PEn except for PE0 which the 
initialization value is 0.

Please refer to schematic diagram 10-58-01. The orange circle IN TABLE 
11-05-31 is the output of the comparator (Sync_Rst_CompDelTop).  It is 
the comparison between the additionOUT from Sync_Rst_TWO_Input_Adder and 
InterA, which the output is from the other block of the same PE1. The 
one in green is for the difference (Sync_Rst_TWO_Input_Sub_Top) between 
the output of SCORE_DelTop and PreDelH from previous PE0. So the output 
of this block (SCORE_DelTop) should be, the initialization value 5, 0 
and 14.

> For clarification you should make a waveform showing the outputs of
> adder, comparator and subtractor of the second PE as well as the PE
> inputs including clk and reset

Referring to 9-39-50, the output of the adder, comparator and subtrator 
is wrong and not the same as table 11-05-31. Theoretically, the addition 
starts by adding the initialization value 5 and a constant, 5.

So, my question is, how can I introduce the initialization value 5 to 
the adder for only one clock cycle?

Ok, as I supposed, the problem is that the register inside the 
subtractor is initialized with 0 after reset. So the adder computes 0+5 
instead 5+5. Due to the loop back, all consecutive results are wrong.
The solution to this problem depends on the source of initialization 
value. I think that it is 5 only in this example, but in general, the 
value may be different?

- If the init value will not change during runtime, you could pass it to 
the subtractor as a verilog parameter and then modify the code such that 
the parameter value is used as a reset value, instead 0. This is a 
simple straight forward way, but a bit ugly. The reset signal should be 
used only to put the system in a defined state but not for loading 
parameters. However, for a quick fix, you could try this.

- A more elegant but complex way would be to implement a controller. 
Currently, your design starts operating immediately after reset. It 
would be better to have an init and a start signal. First, the init 
signal is set for one clock cycle, and during this, the initialization 
value is loaded into the subtractor register. Then the start signal is 
set and the design starts with the previously loaded parameters. This is 
the preferred way as it allows you to restart the computation without 
reset and also to load the init value from a register. init  and start 
are generated from a small state  machine.

Hi Vancouver.

I tried the initialize the rst value to 5 and it works. Thank you very 
much.

I have some other problem and I need your help.

Below is my 3 input comparator used for all PEs in the design. Before I 
didnt use clock here, but the output waveform some value that I didnt 
want due to different in timing within the three input. So, I have to 
use the clock without Rst.

1

timescale 1ns / 1ps

2

module CompInter(Clk,LUT,DelIx_i_1_j,DelIy_i_j_1,SCORE_Inter);

3

4

  //Parameters must come here now until may

5

  parameter ComputeDataWidth = 8;

6

7

  input                              Clk;

8

  input       signed  [ComputeDataWidth-1:0]   LUT,DelIx_i_1_j,DelIy_i_j_1;

9

  output  reg  signed   [ComputeDataWidth-1:0]   SCORE_Inter;

10

11

  //Do the initial comparisons

12

  wire dA_GreaterThan_dB,dB_GreaterThan_dC,dC_GreaterThan_dA;

13

14

  assign dA_GreaterThan_dB = (LUT         > DelIx_i_1_j) ? 1'b1 : 1'b0;

15

  assign dB_GreaterThan_dC = (DelIx_i_1_j > DelIy_i_j_1) ? 1'b1 : 1'b0;

16

  assign dC_GreaterThan_dA = (DelIy_i_j_1 > LUT)         ? 1'b1 : 1'b0;

17

18

  //Decode the results

19

  always@(posedge Clk)

20

  begin

21

        case({dA_GreaterThan_dB,dB_GreaterThan_dC,dC_GreaterThan_dA})

22

        //Limited to minimum possible value 

23

        3'b000:  SCORE_Inter  <= LUT;          //All equal so doesn't matter

24

        3'b001:  SCORE_Inter  <= DelIy_i_j_1;  //C

25

        3'b010:  SCORE_Inter  <= DelIx_i_1_j;  //B

26

        3'b011:  SCORE_Inter  <= DelIx_i_1_j;  //B

27

        3'b100:  SCORE_Inter  <= LUT;         //A

28

        3'b101:  SCORE_Inter  <= DelIy_i_j_1;  //C

29

        3'b110:  SCORE_Inter  <= LUT;         //A

30

        3'b111:  SCORE_Inter  <= 0;           //- (output 0)

31

        default:  SCORE_Inter  <= 0;           //- (output 0)

32

        endcase

33

      end

34

endmodule

Based on the attached waveform,the 1st 4 waveform are from PE0 and the 
last 4 is from PE1. The PE0 output 0 value since I didnt make any 
initialization. However, for PE1 have the 0 value even though I didnt 
make initialization. Do you know why? Also I have warning for this 
matter during synthesize but only for PE1.

>Xst:1710 - FF/Latch <pe0/A/CompInterA/SCORE_Inter_7> (without init value) has a 
constant value of 0 in block <SystolicArrayNovelty2_Testing>. This FF/Latch will 
be trimmed during the optimization process.
>Xst:1895 - Due to other FF/Latch trimming, FF/Latch 
<pe1/A/CompInterA/SCORE_Inter_7> (without init value) has a constant value of 0 in 
block <SystolicArrayNovelty2_Testing>. This FF/Latch will be trimmed during the 
optimization process.
>Xst:1895 - Due to other FF/Latch trimming, FF/Latch 
<pe2/A/CompInterA/SCORE_Inter_7> (without init value) has a constant value of 0 in 
block <SystolicArrayNovelty2_Testing>. This FF/Latch will be trimmed during the 
optimization process.
>Xst:1895 - Due to other FF/Latch trimming, FF/Latch 
<pe3/A/CompInterA/SCORE_Inter_7> (without init value) has a constant value of 0 in 
block <SystolicArrayNovelty2_Testing>. This FF/Latch will be trimmed during the 
optimization process.
>Xst:1895 - Due to other FF/Latch trimming, FF/Latch 
<pe4/A/CompInterA/SCORE_Inter_7> (without init value) has a constant value of 0 in 
block <SystolicArrayNovelty2_Testing>. This FF/Latch will be trimmed during the 
optimization process.
>Xst:1895 - Due to other FF/Latch trimming, FF/Latch 
<pe5/A/CompInterA/SCORE_Inter_7> (without init value) has a constant value of 0 in 
block <SystolicArrayNovelty2_Testing>. This FF/Latch will be trimmed during the 
optimization process.

I cant ignore this warning since it effect other output in the other 
submodule.

Thank you very much

According to the warning, bit 7 of SCORE_Inter will be removed since it 
is always 0. Does this warning also occur for other bits? You should 
combine {dA_GreaterThan_dB,dB_GreaterThan_dC,dC_GreaterThan_dA} in a 
vector and display this in the waveform to see under which circumstances 
the respective case conditions occur. This may help to find out the 
reason for the 0 output in PE 1. Try to use stimuli that drive bit 7 of 
DelIy_i_j_1, LUT etc high. Is it possible that computations simply do 
not use the full 8 bit range? Maybe the results are always positive so 
bit 7 will never be set in the signed format?

Vancouver wrote:
> According to the warning, bit 7 of SCORE_Inter will be removed since it is 
always 0. Does this warning also occur for other bits?

>>Xst:1710 - FF/Latch <pe0/A/CompInterA/SCORE_Inter_7> (without init value) has a 
constant value of 0 in block <SystolicArrayNovelty2_Testing>. This FF/Latch will 
be trimmed during the optimization process.
>>Xst:1895 - Due to other FF/Latch trimming, FF/Latch <pe1/A/CompInterA 
/SCORE_Inter_7> (without init value) has a constant value of 0 in block 
<SystolicArrayNovelty2_Testing>. This FF/Latch will be trimmed during the
optimization process.
>>Xst:1895 - Due to other FF/Latch trimming, FF/Latch 
<pe2/A/CompInterA/SCORE_Inter_7> (without init value) has a constant value of 0 in 
block <SystolicArrayNovelty2_Testing>. This FF/Latch will be trimmed during the 
optimization process.
>>Xst:1895 - Due to other FF/Latch trimming, FF/Latch 
<pe3/A/CompInterA/SCORE_Inter_7> (without init value) has a constant value of 0 in 
block <SystolicArrayNovelty2_Testing>. This FF/Latch will be trimmed during the 
optimization process.
>>Xst:1895 - Due to other FF/Latch trimming, FF/Latch 
<pe4/A/CompInterA/SCORE_Inter_7> (without init value) has a constant value of 0 in 
block <SystolicArrayNovelty2_Testing>. This FF/Latch will be trimmed during the 
optimization process.
>>Xst:1895 - Due to other FF/Latch trimming, FF/Latch 
<pe5/A/CompInterA/SCORE_Inter_7> (without init value) has a constant value of 0 in 
block <SystolicArrayNovelty2_Testing>. This FF/Latch will betrimmed during the 
optimization process.



> You should combine {dA_GreaterThan_dB,dB_GreaterThan_dC,dC_GreaterThan_dA} in a 
vector and display this in the waveform to see under which circumstances the 
respective case conditions occur. This may help to find out the reason for the 0 
output in PE 1.

>> Ive tried your suggestion. As you can see, the waveform is divided to two 
parts. The top part is for PE0 and bottom part is for PE1. Ive combine 
{dA_GreaterThan_dB,dB_GreaterThan_dC,dC_GreaterThan_dA} into a bus (New Virtual 
Bus) and the combination doesnt lead to o/p 0. So I think the 0 does come from the 
warning.

Any idea why?