Talk:Asynchronous circuit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge[edit]

I agree with User:DavidCary that merging Asynchronous circuit and Asynchronous logic makes sense. --Daedalus-Prime 17:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Asynchronous Systems[edit]

I think the articles should remain seperate - the systems page has a lot of general information that does not fit in the circuit article. Kcordina 13:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one has offered further opinion, I have removed the merge tags in line with my opinion. Kcordina Talk 15:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be merged. There is no information in the systems article that would be inappropriate here. The stuff on design styles, modularity, handshaking protocols, async pipelines are all essential knowledge if you're researching asynchronous circuits. Two of the three references in the systems article actually have "asynchronous circuit" in the title. Chris, 8 May 2008. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.188.108.141 (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Other articles to merge: Delay_insensitive_circuit Delay-insensitive

Even it's similar. But I think that the acutual part(Asynchronous circuit) should be seperate from abstraction(Asynchronous Systems)Callmejosh (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections by 172.188.108.141[edit]

I reverted some additions by 172.188.108.141 because they are not strictly true. In the power section the "huge increase in circuit size" is not necessarily present. In fact bundled-data circuits can have a negative overhead due to the removal of clock trees. The Amulet processors was not "cracked" by NDS in Israel. The processor in question is the "SPA" and it wasn't cracked but there was some "information leak" despite its use of balanced dual-rail. Although "there is no significant difference between dual-rail synchronous designs and dual rail asynchronous designs in terms of EMI security" the asynchronous versions are still impermeable to clock glitch attacks. Brejc8 20:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well at the moment the article says that asynchronous circuits lead to lower power consumption, which isn't strictly true. And while it may be true that one class of attacks has been removed, the use of an asynchronous design does not strictly prevent information leakage, or any other attack. New attacks may be introduced; the clock is a control signal, and when every data line is also a control signal, it may be possible to manipulate them to produce a similar failure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.188.108.141 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Removals[edit]

I think the quotes should be removed. Who cares what two guys once said? Neither of them appears to be particularly famous. The Martin rumour should be removed. "Red Star seems to be.." - seems? It either is, or it isn't. The link to UARTs should be removed; asynchronous UARTS are not asynchronous circuits (at least, none that you can buy). Link "asynchronous logic" should be "a.l @ U. of Manchester". Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.188.108.141 (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would like to see redirects from asynchronous_logic and self_timed_logic, though I am not going to add them. I don't see the UART reference, but I believe that there should be such a reference. It should explain that asynchronous logic/circuit/system is not related to asynchronous_communication and link to that page. 76.22.75.98 18:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Hostile Additions[edit]

First, sorry for taking 3 tries before stopping my edits to this page. It was another case where I saw a couple of things, made an edit, and then things got worse as I went.

Anyway, An Anon Y. Mouse at 68.0.124.33 made 2 edits to the main page on May 5, 2008. While they added substantial new, surface rational, information, they also showed a particularly ugly habit: They made several "flames" in the page, ALL of which were enclosed in XML comment tags so they don't display! They don't come to the talk page with it, and they know it'll be reverted (and they likely labelled a troll) if they attack another editor in an ARTICLE page! This is the 1st time I've seen this style of (what *I* consider to be) vandalism (he attacked 3 differences items for "not being microprocessors" when no one's claiming they are? Tone is highly harsh and arrogant. I checked their talk page (which *they* didn't set up, surprise, surprise), and they don't appear to have ever attended a Dale Carnegie course. Didn't see a comment by them on their tal page that wasn't hostile, defensive, or both.

Further, it *appears* that computing is their (self-assumed) area of expertise.

Given I've never seen this style of passive-aggressive behavior hidden "in-line" at Wiki, I'll fwd this same note up the creek... --Grndrush (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diff - [1]. Looks like someone trying to make a point about Caltech producing "the first asynchronous microprocessor" because the other designs weren't implemented using integrated circuit technology. 78.105.220.50 (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from asynchronous logic[edit]

The article Asynchronous logic, previously a redirect to here, has been split off without discussion, by Wasu64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and is all about the 2009 work of Vadim Vasyukevich, as are many of Wasu64's other edits; seems like a clear case of WP:COI. If any other editors think there's a topic there, and find secondary sources to support it, they should say so; or if it's too new to be important, then maybe just a brief mention in asynchronous circuit is all that's needed. Seems to me that a merge, restoring the redirect, is in order. Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I had no difficulty finding a different substantial work on the abstract logic required to support work on such circuits. I have rewritten from this to remove the COI issue and consider that, as the topic seems easy to develop, it should be allowed more time. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you've thrown out the baby with the bathwater though. Just because there may have been COI is not a great reason to say nothing at all about Vasyukevich's asynchronous logic formalism, is it? If the topic is notable on other grounds, which is what you're saying, then there's no reason not to include that stuff (thought not at the length it was before). Dicklyon (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vasyukevich uses his own language such as the neologism venjunction which does not seem accessible and so its relevance to the topic is unclear. I have no objection to us having a summary of his ideas if they are notable but I'm not the one to write it. Perhaps Michael Hardy can help. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just put back a bit of what was there, with citations. It doesn't have to be notable per WP:NOTE if we're not making on article on it per se, and there's no guideline against including neologisms from a reliable source. Dicklyon (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited an earlier paper of his. His more recent substantial manuscript seems to be a book which has not yet been published and so is too cutting edge for us. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; thanks. I'm still not sure it wouldn't be better off being merged here, but at least the main weirdness is taken care of now. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the following editing. Instead of the previous redirection create two meanings: Asynchronous circuit and renamed Asynchronous logic (algebra). As to the merging it would look like Boolean algebra merged in Digital circuit. Perhaps it is possible but ‘no need’. Wasu64 (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No real strong feeling on the merge - weak oppose (reason : possible notable and substantial topic on expansion) - comment doesn't the 'trinary logic' have some relation to 'asynchronous logic' eg Ternary computer with the three values being 'true' 'false' and 'null' (or undefined) - I'm not an expert in the literature so someone else will have to sort this if any action is required at all - I'm fairly certain there is some link though. Specifically see Ternary logic and how it relates to possible signalling in async design.Shortfatlad (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
also Asynchronous logic (computing) not Asynchronous logic (algebra) - I don't think the topic is sufficiently well defined to be classified as an algebraic subset - ie various logic types can work - most of them with more than 2 values - I think a mathematician would be able to classify the logic types better. ie it's not a pure maths subset (did that make sense?). ignore that - expecting a different sort of article.
anyway if I'm wrong I will happily read the resulting article :)
Shortfatlad (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

suggest split[edit]

There seem to be enough references in the "asynchronous circuit#Asynchronous CPU" section to make asynchronous CPUs notable in their own right. I suggest splitting out that section into its own article, leaving behind a brief WP:SUMMARY. --DavidCary (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good proposal, in particular, if you feel that you would like to add significantly more information. Will be some work to properly sort out the references, anyhow. Rainglasz (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is too short to warrant splitting. Even if the subtopic might be notable, that's not a great reason to split it off instead of expanding here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disadvantages and Advantages[edit]

I have added two more items without references, just to start more work on this. The current items are very generic, and do not really cover the problem.

It will be not easy to find many references, as mostly the books and papers on this subject praise the advantages, not the disadvantages. Nevertheless, citations are to be found, but this may take several weeks.

Rainglasz (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The advantages are too numerous !!! Focus us needed.84.226.181.252 (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of fr:Circuit asynchrone[edit]

I plan to translate large parts from the article I wrote on the french Wikipedia : I gathered some historical sources as well as schemes and technical informations. I think that the current english article has a lot of lists, and isn't neutral : there are a lot of things about NCL/SCL, like the "recent breakthrough" part, which, in my opinion, are some kind of publicity. Does anyone agree / disagree / want to help ? Topeil (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HandShake Solutions, 2007-2010?[edit]

It appears Handshake Solutions closed in 2010.--AndreasBWagner (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caltech first async microprocessor [citation needed][edit]

Here's a citation for the authors claiming they were first:

Martin, Alain J. and Burns, Steven M. and Lee, T. K. and Borkovic, Drazen and Hazewindus, Pieter J. (1989) The First Asynchronous Microprocessor: The Test Results. California Institute of Technology . (Unpublished) http://authors.library.caltech.edu/26713/ http://authors.library.caltech.edu/26713/2/postscript.pdf Quoting the paper:

"We have designed the first asynchronous (also called self-timed or delay-insensitive microprocessor)"

Not sure if that qualifies as a citation of fact.

Ross bencina (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Asynchronous circuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The archive says that "Page cannot be displayed due to robots.txt". Gulumeemee (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Asynchronous circuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Dubious" tag replaced with reference to specific objection[edit]

I have removed the "Dubious - discuss" tag from the claim that synchronous logic is easier to design than asynchronous logic, and inserted a reference to Karl Fant's specific objections. I am not certain if I have done this correctly, and in any case it most likely would need further discussion regarding the claims and counter-claims. If any SME could review this, and make suitable amendments, please do so. --Schol-R-LEA (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Synchronous circuit[edit]

The page Synchronous circuit is currently a stub. I was going to c/e content from this article there (more specifically the "Synchronous vs asynchronous logic" section), but it seems to me that both articles would be largely redundant. It should be easy to merge that article into this one content-wise, though I'm unsure how the resulting article should be named. Perhaps "digital circuit"? There is a digital electronics article for which that term currently redirects, in which there are short sections briefly describing synchronous and asynchronous logic, so maybe that's not the best idea. If editors believe a merger would not be beneficial I'll simply c/e from this to that article (the latter is missing some content). Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The two are distinct topics and have different issues. The difference between the two is a constant, but that does not mean the articles should be merged. Glrx (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this article was already small, then it might make sense to merge. Though I suspect that much of this article is comparisons to synchronous logic, which might be simplified or reduced linking to that article. Synchronous logic is not just any logic that isn't the subject of this article, but has its own design criteria and methodology. All of that should go into that article. (I didn't look to see if it is there.) But also the subject of this article is not just anything which doesn't satisfy synchronous logic. That leaves some room for quasi-synchronous logic. Gah4 (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Asynchronous circuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Asynchronous circuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UART[edit]

While a UART is not normally (or ever, as far as I know) built with asynchronous logic, the complete system of sender and receiver, using asynchronous communication, should qualify as an asynchronous circuit. Not completely asynchronous, though, as the usual design synchronizes at the beginning of each character, depending on the individual clocks not being so far off. Some Ethernet systems depend on the receiver synchronizing (phase-locking) to the transmitter. Others, I believe starting with gigabit, choose one end of a link, and use that as the clock source for both directions. (That is, the system really is synchronous.) It would seem that some of this might go into this article. Gah4 (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asynchronous circuits and theory surrounding it are part of the digital electronics[edit]

I believe: Asynchronous circuits and theory surrounding it are part of the digital electronics, but you might not know that the way the teach it now. Gah4 (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asynchronous_circuit&oldid=1216972654"