| *** tpb has joined #symbiflow | 00:00 | |
| *** kmehall has joined #symbiflow | 00:15 | |
| *** proteusguy has quit IRC | 01:47 | |
| *** _whitelogger has quit IRC | 03:58 | |
| *** _whitelogger has joined #symbiflow | 04:00 | |
| *** proteusguy has joined #symbiflow | 04:50 | |
| *** _whitelogger has quit IRC | 06:52 | |
| *** _whitelogger has joined #symbiflow | 06:54 | |
| *** OmniMancer has joined #symbiflow | 09:18 | |
| *** _whitelogger has quit IRC | 14:13 | |
| *** _whitelogger has joined #symbiflow | 14:15 | |
| *** OmniMancer has quit IRC | 14:35 | |
| litghost | mkurc: One thing you might try is CARRY_INF, and have a techmap for both Vivado and VPR. Less than ideal, but it would make a point in the flow where both Vivado and VPR output is possible | 16:38 |
|---|---|---|
| litghost | That is less than ideal, but VPR cannot currently handle having the carry chain be a generic port. The reason CARRY0/CARRY have dedicated fabric and carry chain outputs is because VPR cannot route on or off of the carry chain on its own. VPR could be modified to handle this, but in the short term that is not an important feature, relative to other things. | 16:41 |
| *** proteusguy has quit IRC | 17:16 | |
| *** proteusguy has joined #symbiflow | 17:28 | |
| mkurc | litghost: Yes, you are right. This seems to be the only option for now. So I'll make a sort of "intermediate" techmap for carry chains that could be mapped again either for Vivado or VPR. Thanks. | 18:09 |
| *** jevinski_ has joined #symbiflow | 23:31 | |
| *** jevinskie has quit IRC | 23:32 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.13.1 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!