I don't know exactly what happens at the other end of the compiler, but 
I assumed that since every intermediate signal depends on the initial 
one that it wouldn't separate the inverters.

I thought that the delay the simulator used (generated by Quartus) would 
be the same as if I manually added a delay assignment, only I don't know 
what delay to use in real time. So nothing should be analog in the 
simulation. All I really want to know is the delay across a single gate, 
which should accumulate for larger loops, but I'm not confident in my 
simulation due to the weird results.

Of course all circuit behavior is analog behavior, calling it digital is 
an approximation. Given enough gates the output of the oscillator should 
be approximately digital. If I just attach a constant delay to each 
assignment then the oscillator works perfectly in simulation, only I 
have to guess what the gate delay is. I was hoping the synthesized delay 
file would have a more accurate delay.

Chris C1111 wrote:
> Hi, I am trying to simulate a ring oscillator in Modelsim using the
> delay (.sdo) file generated by Quartus to get the relationship between
> frequency and # of gates. For some reason whenever I simulate this I get
> the exact same frequency, 1.6 GHz, regardless if my oscillator has 1
> gate or 1000.
Beside the fact that the frequency will be much differtent in real life:
whats the initial value for all the gates? How do you assign it?

I use an external clock and a counter with an initialization signal.

assign A = (INIT) ? 1'b1 : ~C;

This should initialize all signals.

Chris C1111 wrote:
> assign A = (INIT) ? 1'b1 : ~C;
And the other ones?

If I set one signal, all the others should be initialized automatically. 
For the example in my first post if I set A = 1, then B and C are 
automatically initialized to 0 and 1 since during initialization there 
is no combinational loop.

Chris C1111 wrote:
> For the example in my first post if I set A = 1, then B and C are
> automatically initialized to 0 and 1 since during initialization there
> is no combinational loop.
And after that all "even" signals will be 1 and all "odd" signals will 
be 0. And thenn, what will happen if they circle araound? Will there 
(for any single signal) be a difference between the short "10101" 
sequence and the long "10101010101010101010101010101010101010101" 
cycling around? No, in both cases each single signal will toggle at 
maximum speed...

So try it with passing through the signal and only toggle its polarity 
on one bit:
assign B = ~A;
assign C = B;
assign A = C;
But then you will have to tell the synthesizer that it has to "keep" all 
of the signals. In VHDL for Xilinx you could do it this way:
http://www.lothar-miller.de/s9y/categories/29-Ringoszillator
(try the google translator, its German)

When I synthesize it in Quartus it generates a delay file (.sdo) which I 
use while I run my simulation.

I think I have it figured out. In order to keep the compiler from over 
simplifying the intermediate gates into a single LUT I need to set all 
the intermediate signals as outputs. Thanks for the replies!

dasdgw wrote:
> I adopted Lothars code to run on a de0nano using Quartus II 12.0.
In VHDL? What are the results? Can you show the code? I find it very 
interesting to compare different architectures...   ;-)

Thanks for pointing that out! Somehow I completely missed Lothar's last 
post. What you said makes perfect sense, I can't believe I missed that. 
Why does wikipedia state the output frequency is 1/(2*N×inverter delay)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_oscillator
(the figure caption)

Edit: I don't think what you said is correct. Immediately after 
initialization, everything is stable except for the first inverter, so 
the last inverter won't toggle until every inverter before it has. At 
that point every inverter is stable again except for the first one.

Chris C1111 wrote:
> Edit: I don't think what you said is correct.
Hmmm...

You and wikipedia are right. I did a short test with symbolic delay:

1

library IEEE;

2

use IEEE.STD_LOGIC_1164.ALL;

3

4

entity RingO is

5

    Port ( reset : in  STD_LOGIC; 

6

           fout  : out STD_LOGIC);

7

end RingO;

8

9

architecture Behavioral of RingO is

10

  signal ring    : std_logic_vector(2 downto 0); -- ungerade Bitanzahl

11

--  signal ring    : std_logic_vector(20 downto 0); -- ungerade Bitanzahl

12

  attribute KEEP : string; 

13

  attribute KEEP of ring : signal is "true"; 

14

begin

15

  assert ring'length mod 2 = 1 report "Length of ring must be an odd number!" severity failure;

16

17

  process (ring,reset) begin

18

     for i in ring'range loop

19

       if i = ring'left then

20

         if reset='1' then

21

           ring(i) <= '1';

22

         else

23

           ring(i) <= not ring(0) after 1ns;

24

         end if;

25

       else

26

         ring(i)   <= not ring(i+1) after 1ns;

27

       end if;

28

     end loop;

29

  end process;

30

31

  fout <= ring(0);

32

33

end Behavioral;

I will check this on hardware later...  ;-)

Without the attribute "keep" all of the stages are optimized down to 1 
single mux-stage (see screenshots). Of course you could invent an output 
pin for each bit (as you did), but FPGA IO pins in real life are to 
expensive for such a simple task...

Yes I didn't know about the keep attribute. Using this my oscillator 
works well in simulation and on my de0 (although as you predicted the 
frequency differs greatly). I get about 250MHz with 21 gates on 
hardware, I'm too scared to go much faster than that.

Chris C. wrote:
> I get about 250MHz with 21 gates on
> hardware, I'm too scared to go much faster than that.

I used ring oscillators with up to 1.2GHz with a chain length which 
makes sure, that all inverters fully saturate before the signal is 
looped back to them. According to the switching time and routing, it is 
possible to tune the model's delays appropriately.

http://www.96khz.org/htm/noisegenerator2.htm