1G eth UDP / IP Stack

Hello Peter,

In UDP_TX.vhd you have the code:

when SEND_USER_DATA => udp_tx_data_out_ready <= '1';

However, it seems to me that it should be:

when SEND_USER_DATA => udp_tx_data_out_ready <= ip_tx_data_out_ready;

Otherwise if the ip layer happens not to be ready for data, udp_tx would accept it from the user but unable to forward it to the ip layer.

Of this I'm not sure, it is just something I noticed while going through the code.

For some reason after posting some parts of the code did not appear as written, so I'll repost without copy-pasting (it seems you can't edit posts here):

In UDP_TX.vhd you have the code:

when SEND_USER_DATA => udp_tx_data_out_ready <= '1';

However, it seems to me that it should be:

when SEND_USER_DATA => udp_tx_data_out_ready <= ip_tx_data_out_ready;

Otherwise if the ip layer happens not to be ready for data, udp_tx would accept it from the user but unable to forward it to the ip layer.

Of this I'm not sure, it is just something I noticed while going through the code.

For some reason after posting some parts of the code did not appear as written, so I'll repost without copy-pasting (it seems you can't edit posts here):

In UDP_TX.vhd you have the code:

However, it seems to me that it should be:

Otherwise if the ip layer happens not to be ready for data, udp_tx would accept it from the user but unable to forward it to the ip layer.

Of this I'm not sure, it is just something I noticed while going through the code.

For some reason after posting some parts of the code did not appear as written, so I'll repost without copy-pasting (it seems you can't edit posts here):

In UDP_TX.vhd you have the code:

when SEND_USER_DATA => udp_tx_data_out_ready (assign) '1';

However, it seems to me that it should be:

when SEND_USER_DATA => udp_tx_data_out_ready (assign) ip_tx_data_out_ready;

Otherwise if the ip layer happens not to be ready for data, udp_tx would accept it from the user but unable to forward it to the ip layer.

Of this I'm not sure, it is just something I noticed while going through the code.

Your analysis is correct. This is now fixed in svn r17