I am working on problem 3 and I was wondering why you tell us that the T
flip-flops have asynchronous resets.
I have implemented what I believe is a functional incremental counter that
starts from 0000, goes to 1111, and then starts again at 0000 without having
made use of the asynchronous resets.
Are we meant to just have a RESET input for the counter? I don't see another
use for the individual resets.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Robert Dick <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
> Ben Schnur:
> > Okay, I think I mostly understand it now, but I'm still not sure about
> > thing:
> > When we are listing prime compatibles:
> > If there are two states that could be used, each of which covers a pair,
> > and one of the states in each pair is shared between them, do we need to
> > list the states that differ as well, or do we only do that when the state
> > covering a pair (or clique) implies another covering state?
> > e.g., if we could make states XY and XZ (no implications), do we list Y
> > Z again on their own?
> No. There is no significant cost to using XY instead of X so just list XY.
> know that implies the possibility of missing some opportunity to leave a
> don't-care around in a state variable function or output function. That is
> O.K. Minimizing state count is a first-order concern. Potentially
> a rare don't-care is a second-order concern.
> Best Regards,
> -Robert Dick-
Received on Mon Nov 24 20:57:03 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 06 2009 - 18:55:01 EST