50 likes | 62 Views
A comparison of three Bluetooth development kits for FPGA systems based on software complexity, Bluetooth complexity, cost, size, memory speed, DAQ-FPGA interface complexity, and embedded processor usage.
E N D
Input Output Connection Status Input Data Connection Speed DAQ – FPGA – PC System Data Storage Connection Status USB FIFO via I/O Data routed through DAQ Virtex – 4FX FPGA Connection Speed PC Handler FPGA Handler Input Data GUI Bluetooth Development Board Micro-Processor Data Storage Concept #1: Virtex-4FX Board with Parani Bluetooth Development Kit
Input Output Connection Status Input Data Connection Speed DAQ – FPGA – PC System Data Storage USB FIFO Spartan 3-E FPGA Data routed through DAQ Bluetooth Module 1 Bluetooth Module 2 Concept #2: BASYS Board with Bluetooth Modules Connection Status via I/O Connection Speed FPGA Handler PC Handler Input Data GUI Data Storage Wireless Transmission
Input Output Connection Status Input Data Connection Speed DAQ – FPGA – PC System Data Storage Concept #3: Spartan-3 Board with Parani Bluetooth Development Kit Connection Status USB Interface via I/O Data routed through DAQ Connection Speed PC Handler FPGA Handler Spartan-3 FPGA Input Data GUI Bluetooth Development Board Data Storage
Description of Selection Criteria • Software Complexity: • Complexity of VHDL development based on projected time for coding. (i.e. utilizing basic Bluetooth modules provided would require extensive coding of Bluetooth stack, thus adding a significant amount of time to the VHDL development) • Bluetooth Complexity: • Two different approaches to Bluetooth have been provided (Bluetooth modules and Parani development board). Utilizing the modules will require custom logic/coding as well as a large amount of hardware development. Hence, more complex with Bluetooth modules over Parani (which is simply RS232) • Cost: • Lower cost beneficial • Size: • Smaller size beneficial. This stems from possible application in robotics platforms where this system would be mounted on a robot. Thus, smaller is better. • Memory Speed: • Want fast speed of memory so that don’t run into bottlenecks of P08311 (for their project, the Compact Flash memory that they used was much too slow for the application). • DAQ-FPGA Interface Complexity: • Simpler the interface, less chance of data being lost or data transmission to be slowed down. • Processor: • Embedded processor posed problems in complexity of coding/communication for P08311. Moving away from embedded processor will be desired.
FPGA Selection Criteria * 1 low to 5 high ** low complexity = high score ***low cost = high score ****smaller size = higher score ~Embedded = 1, Separate = 5