Terasic P0082 DE0-Nano FPGA Development Kit

Table of contents

image

 

{tabbedtable} Tab LabelTab Content
About

The P0082 is a DE0-Nano Development board is a compact-sized FPGA development platform suited for prototyping circuit designs such as robots and "portable" projects. The board is designed to be used in the simplest possible implementation targeting the Cyclone IV device up to 22,320 logic elements (LEs).

 

It allows user to extend designs beyond the DE0-Nano board with two external general-purpose I/O (GPIO) headers. It allows users to handle larger data storage and frame buffering with on-board memory devices including SDRAM and EEPROM. It provides enhanced user peripheral with LEDs and push buttons.

 

Other Features

  • Cyclone IV EP4CE22F17C6N FPGA
  • Configuration & set-up elements: On-Board USB Blaster ckt, serial configuration device EPCS16
  • Memory devices:32MB SDRAM,2Kb I2C EEPROM
  • G-sensor includes ADI ADXL345, 3-axis accelerometer with high resolution (13bits)
  • 8-channel, 12bit Analogue to digital converter
  • On-Board 50MHz clock oscillator
  • Altera complete design suite
  • Features DE0-Nano quick start guide
  • USB Mini-B cable
  • Reconfigurable without requiring superfluous hardware,
  • Suitable for mobile designs where portable power is crucial
  • Provides three power scheme options including a USB Mini-AB port, 2 pin external power header and two DC 5-V pins.

 

image

Important Dates

Enrollment Begins: June 2 2017

Enrollment Ends: July 19 2017

RoadTesters Selected: July 19 2017

Product Shipped: July 20 2017

RoadTesting Begins: July 27 2017

Reminder/Update Email: TBD*

Submit Reviews By: Sept 25 2017**

 

*The element14 RoadTest Staff will send this reminder/update email.

**If a RoadTester is unable to meet the deadline, please notify the RoadTest Program Lead, , as soon as possible before the deadline.

RoadTesters

The following applicants were selected as official RoadTesters:

 

Terms & Conditions

Terasic P0082 DE0-Nano FPGA Development Kit – RoadTest

Terms and Conditions

These are the terms and conditions which govern theTerasic P0082 DE0-Nano FPGA Development Kit RoadTest contest. This Contest requires participants to submit an application indicating their previous experience with this type of equipment/component, information on what they would do to test the equipment/component, and the applicant’s desire to post a thorough review of their experience with images, photos, or other supplemental materials. Participants will be required to meet the Conditions for Participation.  The winners of this RoadTest will receive the item(s) listed below. RoadTest Reviews are due no later than 60 days after the receipt of the item(s). No other prizes are offered.

The Principal terms of the Competition:

The following words and phrases are used in these terms and conditions and have the meanings given to them below.

Terasic P0082 DE0-Nano FPGA Development Kit

(RoadTest or Contest)

Key dates:

Applications Close: midnight (GMT) on July 19  2017

Announcement of Winner (estimated): July 26 2017

 

Prize:  Terasic P0082 DE0-Nano FPGA Development Kit

Additional Prizes: none

Competition Site: https://www.element14.com/community/groups/roadtest?ICID=menubar_resources_roadtest

Site or element14 Community: www.element14.com/community

Judges: members of the element14 community team chosen at the Organiser’s discretion.

Judging Criteria, All of the following which will have equal weighting:

· Demonstrated competence with the technologies including links or descriptions of past projects

· Qualifications as indicated by current job role and/or schooling/vocational training;

· A thorough description of how the prize would be tested;

· Likelihood that the Applicant will blog about the prize and provide a review on element14.com;

· Originality;

· Innovation.

Organiser: Premier Farnell plc (registered in England and Wales under company number 876412) whose registered office is at Farnell House, Forge Lane, Leeds, UK

Conditions for Qualification: in addition to meeting the requirements of these terms, all persons applying to take part in the Contest (each one an Applicant) must:

· Provide a RoadTest application describing what he/she would do if awarded the Prize including similar previous projects, product experience and qualifications

Terms: these terms and conditions which govern the Competition and to which the Organiser reserves the right to make changes from time to time and the latest version of these Terms from time to time will be posted to the Site.

  1. Eligibility
  2. Applications:
  3. Selecting Winners:   
  4. Liability:
  5. General:

1.1 Save as set out in these Terms, the Contest is open to any natural or legal person, firm or company or group of natural persons or unincorporated body.

1.2 All Applicants must be aged at least 18 at the time of their application.

1.3 Applicants must not enter the RoadTest if doing so or taking part may:

1.3.1 cause the Organiser and/or themselves to be in breach of any agreement (including but not limited to any contract of employment) to which they are a party or in breach of any law, regulation or rule having the force of law to which the Organiser or the Applicant may be subject or any policy of the Organiser or the Sponsor;

1.3.2 Require the Organiser to obtain any licence, authorisation or permission to deal with the Applicant; or

1.3.3 Be in breach of any policy or practice of their employer. Some employers prohibit or restrict their employees from taking part in competitions such as these or receiving prizes under them and the Organiser respects those policies and practices.

The Organiser reserves the right to disqualify any Application made in breach of these Terms and to reject any Application which it reasonably believes may be or become in breach. The Organiser reserves the right to require evidence in such form as the Organiser may reasonably require of any Applicant’s compliance with any of these Terms and to disqualify any Applicant or Participant who cannot provide such evidence reasonably promptly. 

1.4 Multiple applications are not permitted.

1.5 Applications may not be submitted by an agent whether acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal or otherwise.

1.6 The Contest is NOT open to:

1.6.1 Any person or entity who is a resident or national of any country which is subject to sanctions, embargoes or national trade restrictions of the United States of America, the European Union or the United Kingdom;

1.6.2 Any employee, director, member, shareholder (as appropriate) or any of their direct families (parents, siblings, spouse, partner, children) (“Direct Families”) of the Organiser and Sponsors; or

2.1 Each Applicant must fully complete and submit a RoadTest Application by the Application Close.

2.2 By submitting a Registration Form, each Applicant:

2.2.1 Authorises the Organiser to use his or her personal data (as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998) for the purposes of running and promoting the RoadTest;

2.2.2 Authorises the Organizer to copy, reproduce and publish their application should they be accepted as a Participant;

2.2.3 Will be deemed to have read, accepted and agree to be bound by these Terms. Applicants are advised to print and keep safe these Terms;

2.2.4 Authorises the Organiser to copy, reproduce and use the Application and/or Review for the purposes of the RoadTest and as otherwise contemplated by these Terms. The Organiser will not be responsible for any inaccuracy, error or omission contained in any reproduction or use of the Project Blogs.

2.2.5 Licenses the Organiser to use the intellectual property in the Project (IP) for the purposes of this Contest. As between the Applicant and the Organiser the IP remains owned by the Applicant.

2.2.6 Grants the Organiser the right to use his or her likeness, photographs, logos, trademarks, audio or video recordings without restriction for the purposes of Contest or the promotion of it or the Site;

2.2.7 Agrees to participate positively in all publicity surrounding the Contest;

2.2.8 Agrees to be responsible for all expenses and costs incurred by him or her in preparing for, entering and participating in the Contest (save for any expenses expressly agreed by the Organiser to be borne by it in these Terms);

2.2.9 Confirms that he or she owns all IP used in his or her application or Project or Blogs and indemnifies the Organiser from any claim by a third party that use of any material provided by an Applicant to the Organiser infringes the intellectual property rights of any third party;

2.2.10 Agrees not to act in any way or fail to act in any way or be associated with any cause or group which would have a negative impact on the reputation of the Organiser and/or the RoadTest.

2.3 All applications submitted to this RoadTest must meet the following criteria:

2.3.1 Applicants must be the author, creator and owner of the proposed review idea. Applicants must not submit someone else’s idea;

2.3.2 The proposed application must be reasonably achievable by the within the time constraints of the Contest; 

2.3.3 Applications must not include or propose any of the following, the inclusion of which shall render any proposed application ineligible:

(a) Applications which relate to socially taboo topics, such as illicit drug use or sexual gratification;

(b) Applications that are or could reasonably be considered to be illegal, immoral, discriminatory or offensive as determined by the Organiser;

(c) Applications in relation to them which if accepted would infringe or breach any of the policies or terms of access or use of the Site.

2.4 No Application may contain any of the hazardous substances identified by Article 4 of Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament on the Restrictions on the Use of Substances in Electronic and Electrical Equipment ("the Directive") or the use of such hazardous substances in the in any such Project must not exceed the maximum concentration values set out in the Directive.

3.1 Winners will be selected by the Organiser on the basis of the quality of his or her application and its adherence to these Terms.

3.2 The total number of Winners selected will be at least the minimum number set out above but the actual number is at the sole discretion of the Organizer and/or the Sponsor, if applicable.

3.3 The Organiser will use all reasonable efforts to announce the Winners via an update to the RoadTest page by the date listed above.

3.4 Winners agree to take part in all publicity which the Organiser or the Sponsor wishes to use to promote the RoadTest, the Products featured or other Contests with which the Organiser may be connected from time to time.

3.5 Details of the Winners may also be published in the media.

3.6 Winners are responsible for all applicable taxes, duties or other charges payable in relation to any prize.

3.7 

4.1 The Organiser hereby excludes all and any Liability arising out of the Contest or the acceptance, use, quality, condition, suitability or performance of any Prize, even where that Liability may arise from the Organiser’s negligence.

4.2 Nothing in these Terms will affect any Liability of the Organiser for death or personal injury arising from its negligence, for breach of Part II of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (in the event that any entrant is entitled to claim rights under the Consumer Protection Act 1987) or for any matter in relation to which it would be illegal for the Organiser to exclude or to attempt to exclude its Liability.

4.3 Subject to 4.2, neither the Organiser, any parent company nor any subsidiary of the Organiser or such parent company or any of their directors, officers and employees (together referred to in these terms and the ‘Associates’) makes any guarantee, warranty or representation of any kind, express or implied, with respect to this Competition or the Prizes potentially available under it. Neither the Organiser nor any of its Associates shall be responsible for any Liability that may arise out of or in connection with person’s participation in this Competition, the claiming, redemption or value of any prizes under it, the use or enjoyment of such prizes or any events or circumstances arising out of or in connection with any of them. Any implied warranties of condition, merchantability or suitability or fitness for purpose of any of them are hereby expressly excluded. Wherever used in these Terms, ‘Liability’ shall mean any and all costs, expenses, claims, damages, actions, proceedings, demands, losses and other liabilities (including legal fees and costs on a full indemnity basis) arising directly or indirectly out of or in connection with the matter concerned. 

5.1 The RoadTest is organised and sponsored by the Organiser. The Organiser reserves the right to delegate all or any of its powers, rights and obligations arising in relation to the RoadTest to any Associate and certain such rights and powers are assumed by the Organiser on behalf of itself and each Associate. Reference to “Organiser” shall be deemed to include reference to each Associate.

5.2 The RoadTest may be terminated at any time if there are, in the sole opinion of the Organiser, an insufficient number of entries, or if the Applications are not of an appropriate standard for a competition of this nature. The Organiser has the right to cancel or suspend the RoadTest at any time due to circumstances outside its reasonable control.

5.3 The Organiser shall have the sole discretion to disqualify (without correspondence or right of appeal) any Applicant it considers to be adversely affecting the process or the operation of the RoadTest or to be in breach of these Terms or to be acting in a disruptive manner or with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any other Applicant or Participant.

5.4 The Organiser has the right to amend or add to these Terms from time to time. Revised Terms and Conditions will be posted on the Contest Site and it is a condition of entry to the RoadTest that Applicants agree to comply with these Terms and, if appropriate, such Terms as amended from time to time.

5.5 Headings are for convenience only and do not affect the interpretation or construction of these Terms and Conditions.

5.6 These Terms and the operation of the Contest shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English Law and any claim or matter arising under these Terms shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.

Comment List
Anonymous
  • I see what you mean, it looks like they've tied all the vccio pins to 3.3V on the DE0-Nano board. That's a bit inflexible - you'd think they could have brought one bank of IO out to a header with its own supply pin. Have you looked at the schematic for the board yet? (I haven't because you have to download a whole CD to get it.) There might be a way to link it (in a similar way to how Cypress do things on the CY8KIT-049 prototyping kit).

     

    I found a review that you'd done of the PSoc 4, but I don't think it can be the one that you are referring to (there was nothing about IO voltages in it). Could you give me a link to the one you meant so that I can read it.

     

    I'll pass on the mentoring, thank you. It wouldn't be very appropriate, what with me being over here in the Rebel Alliance and you being over there on the Dark Side ...

  • Sure 12V no. As mentioned everywhere - and it has a sense - PSoC is designed for low power and low voltage

     

    It is a fact that the PSoC support a wider range of different voltages - are more flexible - than other similar devices; and about this it is interesting that Cypress focused this not only to the bare power voltage but it influences also the logic levels for the A/D conversion blocks. Take a look to the voltages supported in the various conditions, with up to four different voltages:

    image

  • I don't think the PSoC support 12V CMOS level for its inputs. Even the SIO pins only accept voltages up to 6V. Its correct that the PSoC GPIOs can be configured to CMOS threshold levels - but this means the levels which are considered as high and low.

    (Apart from that: the PSoCs are very versatile with their inputs, especially since each IO bank can have a different Vccio, depending on what you want to interface there)

  • Ah young Padawan, you must dig deeper.  The Neo only supports 3.6 volts for input and output.

     

    If you check my old PSOC review, you will find that you can set up the PSOC to work at 3.6, 5v TTL, and 12v CMOS levels, mostly by just setting up its internal termination capability.  Anytime you interface devices, you have to look carefully at terminating resister values.  CMOS triggering is mostly by voltage level change while TTL is more current and voltage based.

     

    I consider that versatility essential for makers who want to integrate legacy hardware with these newer devices.

     

    Now, you could use a PSOC, at 4 USD, to become a buffer with the NEO, at 95 USD, and then you could greatly expand the interface ability of the FPGA.

     

    Mentoring begun has, I believe! image

     

    DAB

  • Issue 1, I find the I/O capability very inferior to the PSOC.  Both is I/O configuration and in drive capability

     

    I've not used the Cyclone parts, so out of curiosity I've just looked at the IO section of the handbook. I'm struggling to understand in what way it's inferior to a PSoc. All the single-ended and differential standards I'd expect are there, with various drive strengths, slew rates, and even selectable internal series terminating resistors. The maximum drive strength for the CMOS standards looks to be about twice that for the PSoc [I'm looking at the PSoc 4 datasheet, so that might be different for the 5 and 6 parts]. Can you explain why you came to that conclusion?

  • Hi DAB,

     

    I am on travel these next two days. Your post - perfectly agreed - describes also a good methodological approach. As I have a minimal experience on the PSoC from Cypress I will read in detail your text and comment with a starting point. But I think this maybe already the enrolling statement image What do you think ?

     

    Enrico

  • That's fine, Don. Should be interesting.

  • Hi Randall,

     

    With your permission, I would like to temporarily highjack this post so that we can discuss the merits of a group road test out in the open.  Everyone is free to chime in here.  These are my initial thoughts and wild ideas.

    I figure putting everything here will let you collect the discussion and repackage it in the member space, with proper sanitation, to show others how and idea can evolve into a world wide road test using multiple people.

     

    On that note I have reviewed the specification and I have some ideas (see previous definition of wild idea) on what we might group test and why.

     

    The NEO-Nano is a very different type of device from a PSOC.  However, since it is intended to enter the same maker space, I think we have an opportunity to properly classify it as to the types of applications where it would be a better fit than the PSOC.

    Issue 1, I find the I/O capability very inferior to the PSOC.  Both is I/O configuration and in drive capability.  So we should Test the I/O issues.

    Issue 2, the Neo talks about building logic units verses the PSOC providing a wealth of already configured digital components.  So we should identify a measure of how many Neo units would be required to build some of the more popular components supported by the PSOC.  I want to clarify what the 22,320 logic units mean compared to each PSOC chip DLU available.

    Issue 3, the Neo provides 8 analog input channels, but only supports sampling rates between 50 Ksps to 200 Ksps.  So what does that mean?  I can see a test looking at A/D accuracy over a series of rates, noise levels over those same rates and the effects of sampling all 8 channels at the same time at the same rates.  I would like to see if the A/D's are stable and if concurrent sampling introduces any noise into the data. 

    Issue 4, The Neo does not provide any analog signal conditioning components.  So I think some testing should be done to look at the effects of some basic OpAmp circuits attached to the inputs to look at any interface effects.

    Issue 5, The Neo supports 32 Mb of SDRAM.  I am curious to see how fast the RAM can be accessed to do image processing.  Note, I am not suggesting connecting an image sensor, just creating some basic digital components to access the memory, run some digital signal processing algorithms and then writing the updated data to a new image.  Nothing exotic, maybe some simple patterns, high and low pass digital filters.  I would be looking more at the timing issues rather than the accuracy of the filters.  Remember, keep it simple.

    Issue 6, the 3 axis sensor.  They claim it can be sampled at 400 Hz.  That rate is very attractive to me for some of my research.  We could run a series of tests using repeatable motions to see the effect of different sampling rates.  I would be looking at data noise, repeatability, sensitivity and accuracy.  I would also like to see a sensitivity test run at the various sampling rates using small weights dropped on a metal plate to which the device as attached.  You can use a linear beam and drop the same small weight at different distances away from the sensor.

    Issue 7, power.  The Neo has a very small power input and drive capability of its I/O pins.  We should runs some test to see how much current it would take the outputs to drive normally connected devices.  You could use the PSOC to change its input connection configuration to see if the Neo could support those inputs.  Conversely, the Neo does not really discuss how well it can be driven by external signal connections.  Makes me wonder if there are problems with either the types or numbers of devices that can provide signals to the Neo.  Again, I think the PSOC output configuration ability might be a great way to test these issues.

    Issue 8, the Neo sports a 50 MHz master clock with the ability to provide a 100 MHz output clock synchronized to the master clock.  We could run a series of clock input and output test to verify stability, sensitivity, and timing locking for the clock.

    Issue 9, programming the Neo.  My initial impression is that this device is more primitive than the PSOC.  So I would like to see someone with PSOC experience do some comparison tests on setting up the same types of digital circuits in each and report on UI and successful implementation.  There is a lot of room for tests here, so I am looking for some specific ideas.

    Issue 10, programming the Neo, Newbie impression.  Some of you have never worked with VHDL type programming before.  Now would be a great time to try and report back to the community.  I personally feel that this device is too challenging for most makers.  I think we need to confirm that perspective and provide the community with an honest appraisal as to who should try to tackle FPGA's.

    Issue 10, Neo verses PSOC component testing.  I think we could select a set of basic PSOC support components.  Find out how hard each is to implement in their perspective devices, then subject both implementations to the same level of digital testing.  I am looking for circuit stability, noise tolerance, noise generation, and ease of use.  If the Neo wants to play with makers, we should verify that it is up to that task.

    Issue 11, a fun simple application using the Neo.  For a couple of years I have had this weird idea (Weird Idea = Wild Idea + thought that stills sounds crazy!) on taking a sensitive 3 axis accelerometer, attaching it to a person and then have the device make sounds (ideally music) based upon the persons movements.  I am thinking of taking the accelerometer data, run it through individual FFT filters and then generate PWM signals at numerous frequencies which can be combined into a simple audio amplifier with some basic analog filters.  Yea, I know, should be fun to make noise with.  Great for a maker faire.

     

    So that is all my brain has come up with so far.  Look it over, let me know what you think and if you are interested, let me know what parts you would like to work on.  Once we get down to an implementable test plan we can go from there.

     

    DAB

  • I think too. A choral roadtest. Veeeery nice and enrhusiaatic idea.

     

    Enrico

  • Sounds like a great idea.

     

    Randall