Commit bad78fb7c777e4f94c7f209404857097c824a97f
1 parent
08e32d5a93
Exists in
master
corrections
Showing 2 changed files with 62 additions and 22 deletions Side-by-side Diff
ifcs2018.tex
... | ... | @@ -143,9 +143,9 @@ |
143 | 143 | \begin{center} |
144 | 144 | \begin{tabular}{|c|cccc|}\hline |
145 | 145 | FIR & BlockRAM & LookUpTables & DSP & rejection (dB)\\\hline\hline |
146 | -1 (monolithic) & 1 & 4064 & 40 & -71.78 \\ | |
147 | -5 & 5 & 12332 & 0 & -216.58 \\ | |
148 | -10 & 10 & 12717 & 0 & -251.01 \\\hline\hline | |
146 | +1 (monolithic) & 1 & 4064 & 40 & -72 \\ | |
147 | +5 & 5 & 12332 & 0 & -217 \\ | |
148 | +10 & 10 & 12717 & 0 & -251 \\\hline\hline | |
149 | 149 | Zynq 7010 & 60 & 17600 & 80 & \\\hline |
150 | 150 | \end{tabular} |
151 | 151 | \end{center} |
ifcs2018_poster.tex
... | ... | @@ -34,12 +34,13 @@ |
34 | 34 | % Title |
35 | 35 | \begin{center} |
36 | 36 | \textbf{{\scshape |
37 | - \Large\color{OliveGreen} | |
37 | + \LARGE\color{OliveGreen} | |
38 | 38 | Filter optimization for real time digital processing of radiofrequency signals: application |
39 | 39 | to oscillator metrology |
40 | 40 | \\}} |
41 | 41 | \end{center} |
42 | 42 | |
43 | +\vspace{-0.7cm} | |
43 | 44 | % Authors |
44 | 45 | \begin{center} |
45 | 46 | \addalignedblock{0.18\textwidth}{flushleft}{% |
46 | 47 | |
47 | 48 | |
48 | 49 | |
... | ... | @@ -61,14 +62,33 @@ |
61 | 62 | \end{center} |
62 | 63 | |
63 | 64 | % First part |
65 | +\vspace{-.71cm} | |
64 | 66 | \newsection{Digital signal processing of ultrastable clock signals} |
65 | 67 | |
66 | -Je ne sais pas trop quoi dire ici | |
68 | +\vspace{-.21cm} | |
69 | +\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*] | |
70 | +\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% | |
71 | +\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% | |
72 | +\item | |
73 | +{\bf Digital phase noise characterization}: flexibility (software defined local | |
74 | +oscillator), stability (no long term drift), reconfigurabilty | |
75 | +$\Rightarrow$ {\bf software defined radio} oscillator phase noise | |
76 | +characterization | |
77 | +\item analog to digital conversion of radiofrequency signal, software | |
78 | +defined local oscillator, mixer and {\bf low pass filter} | |
79 | +\item low pass filter uses most resources and introduces latency (phase delay | |
80 | +in feedback loop): needs to be optimized | |
81 | +\end{itemize} | |
67 | 82 | |
83 | +\vspace{-.21cm} | |
84 | +\hrule{\hfill} | |
68 | 85 | % Second part |
69 | -\newsection{Filter design} | |
70 | -\begin{itemize} | |
71 | - \item How to implementing filter:\\ | |
86 | +\vspace{-.71cm} | |
87 | +\newsection{Filter design and implementation strategy:} | |
88 | +%\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*] | |
89 | +%\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% | |
90 | +%\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% | |
91 | +\vspace{-.41cm} | |
72 | 92 | \addblock{0.48\textwidth}{ |
73 | 93 | \begin{enumerate}[noitemsep,nolistsep] |
74 | 94 | \item \textbf{Classical way:}\\ |
75 | 95 | |
76 | 96 | |
77 | 97 | |
78 | 98 | |
... | ... | @@ -92,21 +112,28 @@ |
92 | 112 | \end{itemize} |
93 | 113 | \end{enumerate} |
94 | 114 | } |
95 | - \item The 2\textsuperscript{nd} way could be considered as an optimization problem: | |
115 | + The 2\textsuperscript{nd} way could be considered as an optimization problem: | |
96 | 116 | \begin{itemize}[noitemsep,nolistsep] |
97 | - \item One or many performance criteria (rejection, noise, throughput...) | |
98 | - \item Limited resources (on FPGA) | |
117 | + \item One or many {\bf performance criteria} (rejection, noise, | |
118 | +throughput...) | |
119 | + \item Limited {\bf resources} (on FPGA) | |
99 | 120 | \end{itemize} |
100 | - \item Translation into a Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) with GLPK solver | |
101 | - \item 3 degrees of freedom: | |
121 | + Translation into a Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) with GLPK solver | |
122 | + 3 degrees of freedom: | |
123 | + | |
124 | +\vspace{.1cm} | |
125 | +\hfill | |
126 | +\parbox{.60\linewidth}{ | |
102 | 127 | \begin{enumerate}[noitemsep,nolistsep] |
103 | 128 | \item The size of chain filters |
104 | 129 | \item The number of coefficients for each filter $i$: $N_i$ |
105 | 130 | \item The number of bits for each coefficients and for each filter $i$: $c_i$ |
106 | 131 | \end{enumerate} |
107 | -\end{itemize} | |
108 | -\vspace{-0.5cm} | |
132 | +} | |
133 | +%\end{itemize} | |
134 | +\vspace{-1.0cm} | |
109 | 135 | \newsection{Filter selection} |
136 | +\vspace{-0.3cm} | |
110 | 137 | \begin{itemize}[noitemsep,nolistsep] |
111 | 138 | \item For select the filter design we need to evaluate the rejection like: |
112 | 139 | \begin{enumerate}[noitemsep,nolistsep] |
113 | 140 | |
114 | 141 | |
115 | 142 | |
116 | 143 | |
117 | 144 | |
... | ... | @@ -140,20 +167,33 @@ |
140 | 167 | \includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{images/fir-mono-vs-fir-series-noise-fixe-jmf.pdf} |
141 | 168 | \captionof{figure}{Custom criterion} |
142 | 169 | \end{minipage} |
143 | - \item For the rejection: the last configuration is better than the first but it's worst than monolithic filter | |
144 | - \item For the resources consumption: the last better than the single filter | |
170 | + \item {\bf Rejection}: the last configuration is better than the first but worse | |
171 | +than the monolithic filter | |
172 | + \item Resources {\bf consumption}: last filter is better than the single monolithic filter | |
173 | +(monolithic does not fit in available resources) | |
174 | +\vspace{-.33cm} | |
145 | 175 | \begin{center} |
146 | 176 | \begin{tabular}{|c|ccccc|}\hline |
147 | 177 | FIR & BlockRAM36 & BlockRAM18 & LookUpTables & DSP & rejection (dB)\\\hline\hline |
148 | - 1 (monolithic) & 1 & 0 & {\color{Red}76183} & 220 & -162.19 \\ | |
149 | - 5 & 0 & 5 & {\color{Green}18597} & 220 & -160.06 \\ | |
150 | - 10 & 0 & 8 & {\color{Green}24729} & 220 & -161.30 \\\hline\hline | |
178 | + 1 (monolithic) & 1 & 0 & {\color{Red}76183} & 220 & -162 \\ | |
179 | + 5 & 0 & 5 & {\color{Green}18597} & 220 & -160 \\ | |
180 | + 10 & 0 & 8 & {\color{Green}24729} & 220 & -161 \\\hline\hline | |
151 | 181 | \textbf{Zynq 7020} & \textbf{140} & \textbf{280} & \textbf{53200} & \textbf{220} & \\\hline |
152 | 182 | \end{tabular} |
153 | - \captionof{table}{Resources consumption when we use the configuration with the custom criterion} | |
183 | +% \captionof{table}{Resources consumption when we use the configuration with the custom criterion} | |
154 | 184 | \end{center} |
155 | - \item With a serie of filters we able to reach the rejection level because we consume less resources than the traditional filter | |
185 | + \item Series of filters: targetd rejection level (-160~dB) reached since less | |
186 | +resources are needed than with a monolithic filter | |
156 | 187 | \end{itemize} |
188 | +\hrule{\hfill} | |
157 | 189 | |
190 | +\vspace{-.71cm} | |
191 | +\newsection{Conclusion} | |
192 | + | |
193 | +\vspace{-.21cm} | |
194 | +\noindent | |
195 | +FIR filter implementation in an FPGA as an optimization problem: best | |
196 | +results with cascaded filters with increasing number of coefficients | |
197 | +and resolution | |
158 | 198 | \end{document} |