Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • State Verified Answer
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 342 subscribers
  • Views 1115 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Video Codec Unit Reference Design for UltraZED-EV

pbourgault_elsys

Hi All,

Do you know if Avnet Design Service will provide a VCU reference design for UltraZED-EV SOM + carrier board similar to the one provided by XILINX for ZCU106 board (https://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/boards_and_kits/zcu106/2018_2/ug1250-zcu106-vcu-trd.pdf)

Regards,
Philippe.

  • 0

    Hi Philippe,

    At this time we cannot commit to whether or not we plan to do a Video Codec Reference Design on the UltraZed EV. I will let you know when/if this changes.

    If you find any information worth sharing for using the Video Codex with UltraZed EV, please share it!

    Thank you,

    Josh

  • 0

    Hi Josh,

    Thanks for answering.

    Then, we will start using VCU TRD on a ZCU106 board and, if it fits our needs, we will then try to migrate functionalites to UltraZed-EV SOM+carrier before making our own custom carrier board.

    Regards,
    Philippe.

  • 0 in reply to pbourgault_elsys

    Phillipe,

     

    The board definition files for this SKU are available here: https://github.com/Avnet/bdf

    It should be possible to implement a VCU TRD for this board, based on the concepts linked in the TRD above.

    I'll update this post as I make progress on the same.

  • 0

    Has anyone successfully migrated the VCU TRD functionality from the ZCU106 to the Avnet UltraZED-EV SOM + carrier board?   The firmware team started with the ZCU106 VCU TRD reference design and then ported the Avnet design.

     

    I am having issue with the FSBL.  The FSBL seems designed for the ZCU106 and not the Avnet UltraZED-EV SOM + carrier board.  Can anyone help?

  • 0 in reply to swengineer1

    Hi there,

     

    I wanted to let you know that we are starting to work on a similar path as listed above.  At this time, I have no committed dates as we JUST started to follow into this path.  As Josh mentioned above, we will keep everyone informed as we can related to this effort.

     

    As for the FSBL, yes, you will need to use the proper FSBL.  The UltraZed-EV has a different BDF than the ZCU106.  As such, you will likely have issues booting.  As the chips can be configured in so many different ways and with specific pins tied to various external hardware (RAM for example needs specific timing associated with the chips), you need to use a properly configured BDF.

     

    --Dan

  • 0 in reply to drozwood90

    Hi Dan,

    Will the pre-built FSBL and u-boot work correctly with the my compiled petalinux kernel?  I build the image.ub and BOOT.BIN.  The BOOT.BIN is wrong so the firmware team is suggesting I just use the prebuilt BOOT.BIN that is created when the project is created based on the Avnet bsp.  Will the prebuilt BOOT.BIN work with my compiled image.ub?

     

    Thank you

  • 0 in reply to swengineer1

    "it depends"

    The FSBL configures the hardware.  If you have changed anything the likely answer is no.  There is a decent chance it would work if you did not change the hardware - however it is always best to just build a FSBL by exporting the hardware from your Vivado design.  u-boot is just a second stage boot loader, so it should not have any issue working so long as you are not trying to do something it was not designed to do.

     

    If you built the image.ub and BOOT.BIN, I'm not sure how they can be wrong unless you did not get an export from the Vivado project.  From your description, I would suggest talking to them and have them export the design to SDK and create a new FSBL from there.  Then you can utilize those files.

     

    As for the boot.bin working with your image.ub, again, "it depends" as our boot.bin will include the hardware configuration as well as the FPGA image for OUR design.  If the hardware matches 100%, it likely will work, but in reality it is not worth the risk when with two clicks you can get the image exported into SDK, then with almost no effort you can generate a FSBL that matches that hardware.  I guess I so not see the benefit of experimenting as it even likely takes more time to do what you are suggesting than creating a new FSBL.BOOT.BIN in SDK that the tool will ensure works.

     

    --Dan