4 ms·

Edalize: An abstraction library for interfacing EDA tools

35 points by osivertsson 6y ago

social_quotient 6y ago
EDA = Exploratory Data Analysis
- balsam 6y ago
  From the look of it, seems to be more like Electronic Design Automation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_design_automation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_design_automation
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
maweki 6y ago
The project readme seems to be lacking a good description of how powerful it is or which software and which workflows are supported (maybe with a list). I remember pyEDA (https://pyeda.readthedocs.io/ https://pyeda.readthedocs.io/) interfacing with SAT solvers and BDD libraries, as well as some logic minimizers. The (EDA) field is large and pyEDA was good for general logic constraint solving, though I never tried to verify hardware. With the HDL-Focus it seems "hardware" is a specific target here. This is not very well explained. But maybe for someone who works with HDL on the regular, this is not a problem.
- doix 6y ago
  From what I can tell, the goal here is to create an abstraction for interfacing with the different tools from different EDA vendors. All these tools have their own arcane CLI arg names for essentially the same stuff, this is trying to abstract that and create a python way of describing all of that. Where I work, we just use a bunch of Makefiles. We mostly just stick to a single vendor though.
  - maweki 6y ago
    > the goal here is to create an abstraction for interfacing with the different tools from different EDA vendors I gathered as much. Again, the EDA-space is large. PyEDA was interfacing to severals SAT-Solvers, BDD-Libraries (even rolling their own if you didn't want dependencies), and logic minimizers. This abstraction Layer here seems to mainly wrap EDA-tooling around HDL and therefore (I guess, since I am not a hardware guy) hardware verification tools. I would guess that those are basically the two ends of the EDA-spectrum, going from the very abstract of some First Order Boolean Formula Satisfiability problem to Actual Hardware Verification.
  - kingosticks 6y ago
    > We mostly just stick to a single vendor though. This. The tools are expensive so we license one simulation tool and we build our world around it. At least where I work, there's no situation where we pay for multiple tools that do the same thing, it would be considered a waste of money to license multiple and I think I agree with that. The same goes for the synthesis and backend tools. Driving these tools is difficult to get right so we stick with just one. There would have be a really, really really compelling reason to switch and it's yet to manifest. Sure, the tools have bugs but we report them and they do get fixed. It would have to be something quite special to make a switch interesting, even more special than synthesiable VHDL 2008!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nickysielicki 6y ago
I can't imagine this doing well in a design where I instantiate xilinx primitives and want to port the design to altera. Unfortunately, there are plenty of times where instantiating vendor primitives is completely necessary. The tools suck and I'm glad people are trying to make them suck less... but nothing is going to change substantially until the community demands that the vendors do their part or force their hands.
lallysingh 6y ago
I'm sure it could be very useful to some projects. Now: why are 'edam' and 'files' pure dicts instead of constructed with some basic API that can catch errors? It's really annoying to debug silent errors in stuff like that.
DoingIsLearning 6y ago
A welcome solution to a problem space in need of some serious simplification and standardization. To all the FPGA vendors out there, I want/need/have to use your chips, I genuinely do not care about all the 20 thousand GUI-based idiosyncrasies you decide to add to your tooling every 3 months, in order to 'make my life easier'. Expose it through an API and document it fully (not partially). VHDL-2008 standard was published in Jan 2009, more than _eleven_ years ago, still to this day, it is not fully supported on most tools. How can you look at customers with a straight face and reasonably think that you should continue to add more GUI-based abstraction layers (looking at Xilinx Vitis), instead of focusing on the basics first. I sincerely hope that projects like Yosys, Symbiflow, GHDL, etc. continue to mature and grow. Equally important, I hope that vendors that support these projects (like Lattice) actually see a rise in market share because of opening up their hardware to open-source community toolchain. edit: corrected publication date of VHDL-2008
- amelius 6y ago
  > To all the FPGA vendors out there I wonder how many of them read HN. Perhaps it would be better to send them a letter? And perhaps these companies are making the "wrong" product simply because nobody ever tells them what they want.
  - alxlaz 6y ago
    Technical reasons aside (some of these vendors are on 20+, even 30+ year-old codebases by now), the other big reason why they are making the "wrong" product is that the "right" product avoids some vendor lock-in and makes some of the consulting market redundant. As far as the product managers are concerned (or, more accurately, as far as the metrics based on which they're evaluated are concerned), the "wrong" product isn't wrong at all. End users have been complaining about all these "20 thousand GUI-based idiosyncrasies " forever, but they've nonetheless put up with them because at the end of the day you have to ship the damn thing. There's been no shortage of outside players attempting to "disrupt" this market. However, most of these attempts have been comical failures. Instead of addressing problems that FPGA/hardware engineers have, lots of these attempts were focused on addressing the sort of problems that software engineers have when they try to do FPGA development. Not necessarily (but, in some cases, also) due to sheer superficiality, but also because they are problems that are a lot more accessible when coming from outside the field, without a foothold in the FPGA manufacturing/development space (i.e. when you're not building tools for FPGAs that you design, manufacture and sell). So lots of these problems are very much WONTFIX: users have no meaningful alternatives, and fixing some of these things might actually even make it easier for alternatives to spring up (or at least for users to build various in-house tools that aren't so vendor-specific). Why would any FPGA vendor waste money on that?
jeffreyrogers 6y ago
I'm an FPGA engineer. This is cool, but seems unlikely to be used much in practice, mostly because the tools are so crufty that the industry has silo'd itself into separate hardware ecosystems. For example, most places will use all Altera or all Xilinx chips, and their designs will rely on features that are only provided by the Altera or Xilinx tools/chips, making switching tools expensive and time-consuming.
gsmecher 6y ago
Tooling tends to stack vertically in software: you can put together Jython-on-JVM-in-Docker-on-Linux-in-EC2 if you want to, without every layer diminishing the ones above and below it. In EDA, tooling stacks horizontally. At minimum, I need a simulator and a synthesizer, and both need to support the same features for those features to be useful. Every tool or layer I add to my EDA stack erodes the feature set I am able to use for all of them. Encrypted IP? VHDL-2008? SystemVerilog? Only with a commercial simulator. Now you have to start squabbling over licenses, which is the same problem except you've traded technical limitations for economic ones. (edit: and paid 6 figures for the privilege.) All of this is a huge drag on productivity. It benefits only the big EDA incumbents (not even the FPGA manufacturers). If EDA tooling is going to improve, we need to change this dynamic. Until we do, adding layers to the tooling is a net loss except for a small sliver of the user community. (Typically the people who wrote it.)
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  There are projects attempting to reverse engineer bistream formats. They are having some success but it is slow going. The last I looked some Lattice parts were mostly broken open. VHDL manipulation is quite advanced, see SpinalHDL. But they are limited to spitting out a blob of VHDL you can put into your toolchain for your device.

35 points by osivertsson 6y ago

social_quotient 6y ago

EDA = Exploratory Data Analysis

balsam 6y ago
From the look of it, seems to be more like Electronic Design Automation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_design_automation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_design_automation
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

maweki 6y ago

The project readme seems to be lacking a good description of how powerful it is or which software and which workflows are supported (maybe with a list). I remember pyEDA (https://pyeda.readthedocs.io/ https://pyeda.readthedocs.io/) interfacing with SAT solvers and BDD libraries, as well as some logic minimizers. The (EDA) field is large and pyEDA was good for general logic constraint solving, though I never tried to verify hardware. With the HDL-Focus it seems "hardware" is a specific target here. This is not very well explained. But maybe for someone who works with HDL on the regular, this is not a problem.

doix 6y ago
From what I can tell, the goal here is to create an abstraction for interfacing with the different tools from different EDA vendors. All these tools have their own arcane CLI arg names for essentially the same stuff, this is trying to abstract that and create a python way of describing all of that. Where I work, we just use a bunch of Makefiles. We mostly just stick to a single vendor though.
- maweki 6y ago
  > the goal here is to create an abstraction for interfacing with the different tools from different EDA vendors I gathered as much. Again, the EDA-space is large. PyEDA was interfacing to severals SAT-Solvers, BDD-Libraries (even rolling their own if you didn't want dependencies), and logic minimizers. This abstraction Layer here seems to mainly wrap EDA-tooling around HDL and therefore (I guess, since I am not a hardware guy) hardware verification tools. I would guess that those are basically the two ends of the EDA-spectrum, going from the very abstract of some First Order Boolean Formula Satisfiability problem to Actual Hardware Verification.
- kingosticks 6y ago
  > We mostly just stick to a single vendor though. This. The tools are expensive so we license one simulation tool and we build our world around it. At least where I work, there's no situation where we pay for multiple tools that do the same thing, it would be considered a waste of money to license multiple and I think I agree with that. The same goes for the synthesis and backend tools. Driving these tools is difficult to get right so we stick with just one. There would have be a really, really really compelling reason to switch and it's yet to manifest. Sure, the tools have bugs but we report them and they do get fixed. It would have to be something quite special to make a switch interesting, even more special than synthesiable VHDL 2008!

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nickysielicki 6y ago

I can't imagine this doing well in a design where I instantiate xilinx primitives and want to port the design to altera. Unfortunately, there are plenty of times where instantiating vendor primitives is completely necessary. The tools suck and I'm glad people are trying to make them suck less... but nothing is going to change substantially until the community demands that the vendors do their part or force their hands.

lallysingh 6y ago

I'm sure it could be very useful to some projects. Now: why are 'edam' and 'files' pure dicts instead of constructed with some basic API that can catch errors? It's really annoying to debug silent errors in stuff like that.

DoingIsLearning 6y ago

A welcome solution to a problem space in need of some serious simplification and standardization. To all the FPGA vendors out there, I want/need/have to use your chips, I genuinely do not care about all the 20 thousand GUI-based idiosyncrasies you decide to add to your tooling every 3 months, in order to 'make my life easier'. Expose it through an API and document it fully (not partially). VHDL-2008 standard was published in Jan 2009, more than _eleven_ years ago, still to this day, it is not fully supported on most tools. How can you look at customers with a straight face and reasonably think that you should continue to add more GUI-based abstraction layers (looking at Xilinx Vitis), instead of focusing on the basics first. I sincerely hope that projects like Yosys, Symbiflow, GHDL, etc. continue to mature and grow. Equally important, I hope that vendors that support these projects (like Lattice) actually see a rise in market share because of opening up their hardware to open-source community toolchain. edit: corrected publication date of VHDL-2008

amelius 6y ago
> To all the FPGA vendors out there I wonder how many of them read HN. Perhaps it would be better to send them a letter? And perhaps these companies are making the "wrong" product simply because nobody ever tells them what they want.
- alxlaz 6y ago
  Technical reasons aside (some of these vendors are on 20+, even 30+ year-old codebases by now), the other big reason why they are making the "wrong" product is that the "right" product avoids some vendor lock-in and makes some of the consulting market redundant. As far as the product managers are concerned (or, more accurately, as far as the metrics based on which they're evaluated are concerned), the "wrong" product isn't wrong at all. End users have been complaining about all these "20 thousand GUI-based idiosyncrasies " forever, but they've nonetheless put up with them because at the end of the day you have to ship the damn thing. There's been no shortage of outside players attempting to "disrupt" this market. However, most of these attempts have been comical failures. Instead of addressing problems that FPGA/hardware engineers have, lots of these attempts were focused on addressing the sort of problems that software engineers have when they try to do FPGA development. Not necessarily (but, in some cases, also) due to sheer superficiality, but also because they are problems that are a lot more accessible when coming from outside the field, without a foothold in the FPGA manufacturing/development space (i.e. when you're not building tools for FPGAs that you design, manufacture and sell). So lots of these problems are very much WONTFIX: users have no meaningful alternatives, and fixing some of these things might actually even make it easier for alternatives to spring up (or at least for users to build various in-house tools that aren't so vendor-specific). Why would any FPGA vendor waste money on that?

jeffreyrogers 6y ago

I'm an FPGA engineer. This is cool, but seems unlikely to be used much in practice, mostly because the tools are so crufty that the industry has silo'd itself into separate hardware ecosystems. For example, most places will use all Altera or all Xilinx chips, and their designs will rely on features that are only provided by the Altera or Xilinx tools/chips, making switching tools expensive and time-consuming.

gsmecher 6y ago

Tooling tends to stack vertically in software: you can put together Jython-on-JVM-in-Docker-on-Linux-in-EC2 if you want to, without every layer diminishing the ones above and below it. In EDA, tooling stacks horizontally. At minimum, I need a simulator and a synthesizer, and both need to support the same features for those features to be useful. Every tool or layer I add to my EDA stack erodes the feature set I am able to use for all of them. Encrypted IP? VHDL-2008? SystemVerilog? Only with a commercial simulator. Now you have to start squabbling over licenses, which is the same problem except you've traded technical limitations for economic ones. (edit: and paid 6 figures for the privilege.) All of this is a huge drag on productivity. It benefits only the big EDA incumbents (not even the FPGA manufacturers). If EDA tooling is going to improve, we need to change this dynamic. Until we do, adding layers to the tooling is a net loss except for a small sliver of the user community. (Typically the people who wrote it.)

R0b0t1 6y ago
There are projects attempting to reverse engineer bistream formats. They are having some success but it is slow going. The last I looked some Lattice parts were mostly broken open. VHDL manipulation is quite advanced, see SpinalHDL. But they are limited to spitting out a blob of VHDL you can put into your toolchain for your device.