State minimization in asynchronous circuits

 Similar to the minimization we did with synchronous sequential circuits.

 Lot’s of opportunity for state minimization in asynchronous flow tables:

 Lots of don’t care outputs for unstable states (since we won’t stay in this
situation too long).
 Don’t care next state information if we assume fundamental mode operation
(some transitions will not occur).

ECE124 Digital Circuits and Systems Page 1

Compatible states

 With don’t cares, equivalency is replaced with compatibility.

 Two states A and B are compatible if, for every input combination we find:

 A and B produce the same outputs where specified, AND

 A and B have compatible next states where specified.

 Don’t cares match with anything…

ECE124 Digital Circuits and Systems Page 2

Implication chart using compatible states (1)

 Consider the following flow table with some unspecified next states and outputs (two
inputs, one output, 6 states):

curr
inputs (DG) output
state
00 01 11 10 00 01 11 10
a c a b - - 0 - -
b - a b e - - 1 -
c c a - d 0 - - -
d c - b d - - - 0
e f - b e - - - 1
f f - - e 1 - - -

ECE124 Digital Circuits and Systems Page 3

Implication chart using compatible states (2)

 Build the implication chart (list states along left and bottom side – like lower triangle
of a matrix):

curr
state
inputs (DG) output b
00 01 11 10 00 01 11 10
c
a c a b - - 0 - -
b - a b e - - 1 - d
c c a - d 0 - - - e
d c - b d - - - 0
f
e f - b e - - - 1
f f - - e 1 - - - a b c d e

ECE124 Digital Circuits and Systems Page 4

Implication chart using compatible states (3)

 Mark states incompatible due to different outputs with “x”.

 Marking definitely compatible states with “v”.

 Marking possibly compatible states with implied decisions.

curr
state
inputs (DG) output b
00 01 11 10 00 01 11 10
c (d,e)
a c a b - - 0 - -
b - a b e - - 1 - d (d,e)

(c,f)
c c a - d 0 - - - e (c,f)
(d,e)
d c - b d - - - 0 (c,f)
f (c,f)
(d,e)
e f - b e - - - 1
f f - - e 1 - - - a b c d e

ECE124 Digital Circuits and Systems Page 5

Implication chart using compatible states (4)

 Scan columns again and again, checking implied decisions to remove compatibilities…

curr
state
inputs (DG) output b
00 01 11 10 00 01 11 10
c (d,e)
a c a b - - 0 - -
b - a b e - - 1 - d (d,e)

c c a - d 0 - - - (c,f)
e (c,f)
(d,e)
d c - b d - - - 0 (c,f)
f (c,f)
(d,e)
e f - b e - - - 1
f f - - e 1 - - - a b c d e

ECE124 Digital Circuits and Systems Page 6

Merger diagram with compatible states (1)

 Squares with any “x” are not compatible; those with all “v” are compatible (possibly
under implications).

 Draw the Merger Diagram:

a

f b

e c

ECE124 Digital Circuits and Systems Page 7

Merger diagram with compatible states (2)

 We now look for large cliques in the graph (clique is part of the graph in which every
node is connected to every other node)…

a
a

f b
f b

e c
e c

d
d

 We can now merge states (a,c,d) and (b,e,f). We have reduced 6 states down to 2
states by merging.

ECE124 Digital Circuits and Systems Page 8

Important!!!

 Reminders:
 We need to check that each state is included at least once.
 We need to make sure that any implied compatibilities are true…

 For our solution…

 (a,c,d) and (b,e,f) all states are included.
 Implied compatibilities are true. In particular, (a,c,d) and (b,e,f) requires no
implied compatibilities.

ECE124 Digital Circuits and Systems Page 9

Final result

 Our final result is:

curr curr
inputs (DG) output inputs (DG) output
state state
00 01 11 10 00 01 11 10 00 01 11 10 00 01 11 10
a c a b - - 0 - - a c a b b 0 0 - 0
b - a b e - - 1 - b b a b b 1 - 1 1
c c a - d 0 - - -
d c - b d - - - 0
e f - b e - - - 1
f f - - e 1 - - -

 Note that we still have some unspecified values in the flow table (which is no longer a
primitive flow table).

ECE124 Digital Circuits and Systems Page 10

Revisiting the merger diagram (1)

 Useful to illustrate an example where we need to be careful about mergings in the

Merger Diagram.

 Consider the following implication chart and its merger diagram:

b (b,c)

c (d,e)
b
d (b,c) (a,d) e
e (b,c)

a b c d

d c

ECE124 Digital Circuits and Systems Page 11

Revisiting the merger diagram (2)

 Say we consider the merging (a,b) and (c,d,e)…

 For (a,b), (d,e) we require that (b,c) get merged.

 For (c,d) we require that (a,d) get merged.

 The implied compatibilities do not hold given our selected merging, so our merging is
BAD (i.e., wrong). a

b (b,c)

c (d,e)
b
d (b,c) (a,d) e
e (b,c)

a b c d

d c

ECE124 Digital Circuits and Systems Page 12

Revisiting the merger diagram (3)

 Say we consider (a,d), (b,c), (c,d,e)…

 The implied compatibilities do hold given our selected merging, so our merging is
GOOD (i.e., right).

b (b,c)

c (d,e)
b
d (b,c) (a,d) e
e (b,c)

a b c d

d c

ECE124 Digital Circuits and Systems Page 13

Summary

 Given a flow table (or state table), we can always try to reduce the number of states
using an implication chart and a merger diagram.

 Both tables (the original table and the reduced table) will perform the same function.

 The idea is that having a smaller table will result in a simpler circuit.

ECE124 Digital Circuits and Systems Page 14