Secure and Efficient Data Transmission Using Ldpc and AES Method In Digital Signal Processor and Vlsi

DOI : 10.17577/IJERTV3IS051107

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

Secure and Efficient Data Transmission Using Ldpc and AES Method In Digital Signal Processor and Vlsi

S. Karthick Vlsi Design

Npr College Of Engg And Tech, Natham

Abstract – In this paper, we are going to propose the application space geographic expedition of a heterogeneous DSP (Digital Signal Processor) with dynamical constellation capabilities and such gimmick consists of three reconfigurable engines having unlike relishes and various reckoning granularities which built it desirable for broad range of digital signal processing application areas like video coding, image processing, telecommunications, and cryptography. From the measurements which are executed on a CMOS 90 nm prototype, we can evaluate the operation of signal processing features. To distinguish the application space of a processor, the performance of entire system is compared with state-of-the-art devices, bringing programmability, energy efficiency and computational capabilities as their major prosody. Moreover, this device can overwork energy efficiency and performance importantly more than GPPs (General Purpose Processors) and even preserving a user-friendly programming access which primarily trusts on software-oriented languages only. Such device can be able to attain 1.2 to 15 GOPS with energy efficiency from 2 to 50 GOPS/W while functioning the selected features.

Index TermsAdvanced Encryption Standard (AES), application- specific signal processors (ASSP), binarization CGRA, Cyclic redundancy check (CRC), digital signal processor (DSP), dynamic frequency scaling, edge detection, energy efficiency, ethernet, field programmable gate array (FPGA), motion compensation (MC), motion estimation (ME), reconfigurable computing, RGB2YUV.


The development of application standards is pushing the digital systems to equalize the ever- enhancing computational necessities of signal processing algorithmic rule and such development impresses the computational operation of a components as well as the expected amount of energy for calculation of a objective algorithm. From the infomercial point of view, few of the main semiconductor industries are presented various digital signal processors which are used for embedded as well as portable computing, like NXP Nexperia [2] and ST Nomadik [1], in the recent years. Those gimmicks belong to the class of ASSPs (Application-Specific Signal Processors) which can be able to equalize the

computational as well as energy necessities of such applications thanks to development of powerful DSPs (Digital Signal Processors) and HASA (Hardwired Application-Specific Accelerators) and that are generally dealt by a core of standard controller like ARM and PowerPC and defending operating systems to facilitate programmability. [3-5].

Although they organize a very prominent slice of the signal processing grocery, those gimmicks are not invariably fitted to follow the development of the application standards because of the particularity of their own accelerators, thus each and every time a novel standard is needed, a novel device should be re- designed. [6]. The demand for inventing particular accelerators for every kernel minimizes the possibility of utilizing subsisting IPs (Internet protocols), pushing a eminent portion of that system to be re-planned and re- checked each and every time of a novel application is formulated. Furthermore, long plan and confirmation times may dramatically minimize the market intensities attainable by a committed product. [8] A next significance is linked with non-recurrent technical costs, generally impressing entire advanced technologies and ASSPs in specific, creating production executable only for very large market intensities.

In few cases, the particularity of those signal processors is extenuated by fitting them with smart accelerators which can able to support more than one number of standards. Instances of such conception are encryption processors enduring several standards of AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) or CRC (Cyclic redundancy check) [4], or media players enduring MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and H.264 codecs. A standardized approach has been followed in the area of baseband processing and such approach that modifies enhanced market intensities has only been enforced to some of the applications apportioning most vital kernels in the retiring and it does not permit for whatever proper

application advancing. A major possible solution to broaden the plan life of a product by enhancing their tractability lies in reconfigurable computing that modifies a device to effort spatial calculation distinctive in ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) designs; cheers to programmable computational components collaborating through a configurable interlink. [7,9].

The major commercial examples of such category of devices are FPGAs (Field-programmable gate arrays) and such kind of devices are generally applied in various fields of signal processing applications, due to the fine-grained pattern based on SRAM LUTs (Lookup Tables) which grant a planner to apply any sort of logical function. Nevertheless, the fine- grained pattern of these devices frequently introduces fields and power overheads as well. Furthermore, the hardware-oriented languages are needed to program FPGAs which are much more complex and hard to apply than software-oriented languages. [10,12]. For those causes they are not capable to attain either the programmability distinctive of GPP (General Purpose Processors) or efficiency distinctive of ASSPs. The unequalled characteristic of the digital signal processor below rating, code-named Morpheus is to keep the structure typical of ASSPs, when substituting application-specific accelerators with a heterogeneous set of several flavors and coarsenesses of reconfigurable devices. [13,16].

In such view, synchronization, operation of application data flows, and reconfiguration of operational devices are treated by a processor, when computationally vital portions of applications accomplish on the reconfigurable gimmicks and the heterogeneous character of our proposed device must permit one to choose the most desirable and reconfigurable metric for each and every kernel, calculating on the computational demands, thus attaining eminent mapping efficiencies and minimizing the intrinsically overheads distinctive of reconfigurable results. [14,15]. In order to alleviate the application mappings, the reconfigurable locomotives are fitted with particular proprietary instruments that modify the custom-make of the devices beginning from software- oriented programming languages, when rendering affirms for rectifying and profiling. By considering the GPPs, the major goal of the Morpheus platform is to render more beneficial performance, while keeping the programming legacy and tractability distinctive of software-programmable components. If equalized to FPGAs, the Morpheus platform is proposed to render easier programmability, particularly with respect to the evolution of the top-level enfolding and synchronization

levels that can have a substantial effect on the rate of execution of applications on FPGA devices. [17].

  1. LOW-DENSITY PARITY-CHECK (LDPC) LDPC (Low-density parity-check) codes are a

    category of linear block LDPC codes and such name arrives from the feature of their parity-check matrix that comprises only some number of 1s in equivalence to the number of 0s. The major benefit of such LDPC is that they render an execution which is merely close to the capability for a several separate channels and linear time complexity algorithms for decoding process. Moreover, they are desiable for effectuations which create arduous employ of parallelism. They are first invented by Gallager in his Ph.D thesis in the year of 1960. But due to some computational cause in applying coder and en- 1960 coder used for such codes and the initiation of Reed-Solomon codes which were generally dismissed till about ten years ago.

  2. ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD (AES) AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) is a type

    of symmetric block cipher method and this intends that it employs the Lapp key for both encryption as well as decryption. Nevertheless, AES is rather unlike from DES in more number of fashions. The algorithm grants for a kind of block and key sizes and they are not exactly the 64 and 56 bits of DES block and their key sizes. Moreover, the block and key can as a matter of fact be selected severally from 128, 160, 192, 224, 256 bits and they have no need to be the same. Nevertheless, the AES standard submits that the algorithm alone can consent a block size of 128 bits and a selection of three keys like 128, 192, 256 bits. Calculating that version is employed, the identity of the standard is changed to AES-128, AES-192 or AES- 256 severally. Apart from these divergences AES disagrees from DES in which it is not a feistel system. Remember that in a feistel structure, half of the data block is employed to enables another half of the data block and then the halves are swopped. In such case the overall data block is executed in parallel throughout each round employing commutations and substitutions and total number of AES arguments reckon on the length of key. For instance, if the key size needed is 128 then the total number of stages is 10 where it is 12 and 14 for 192 and 256 bits severally. Recently the most general key size probable to be employed is the 128 bit key. Such description of the AES algorithm thus depicts this specific implementation.


    General purpose processors (GPPs) are planned to operate various applications and execute several tasks. General purpose processors are rather valuable specifically for little devices which are planned to execute particular tasks. Besides, general purpose processors may deficiency eminent performance that a particular task necessitated. Thus, application specific processors issued as a result for eminent performance and cost efficient processors and such application specific processors have turn a part of every human lifes and can be detected nearly in each and every device we employ on a daily fundamentals. Gimmicks like cell phones, TVs, and GPSs they are all contain a class of application specific processors that combines eminent performance, reduced cost, and reduced power consumption.

    Application specific processors are classified into three major classes:

    1. DSP (Digital Signal Processor): Programmable microprocessor which is used for wide range of real-time mathematical calculations.

    2. ASIP (Application Specific Instruction Set Processors): Programmable microprocessor whereas hardware and instruction set is planned in concert for one particular application.

    3. ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit): Algorithms are fully applied in hardware.


    Few of the distinctive approaches of constructing an embedded system or an application specific system are to employ one or more of the adopting effectuation schemes: GPP, ASIC or ASIP.

    GPP: GPP is General Purpose Processors. Operation of the system is entirely constructs on the software stages. Though the most prominent benefit of this system is the tractability but it is not optimum in term of operational performance, energy consumption, forcible space, cost, and dissipation of heat.

    ASIC: As compared with GPP, ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) based systems provides most eminent performance and energy consumption but in the cost of tractability and extensibility. Though it is hard to employ the ASIC for some tasks other than the purpose of their design, but it is possible to employ GPP to execute the most common less necessitating chores in addition to ASIC in the similar system.

    ASIP: In such approach, an ASIP is essentially a cooperation between the two extrema; The ASIC (Application specific integrated circuit) processors are planned to execute generally a very particular job with eminent performance but with reduced room for variations and the GPPs (General Purpose Processors) that costs a much more than the ASIP but with uttermost tractability at what they execute. Due to this tractability and reduced price, ASIP are heavy to be employed in system-on-a-chip and embedded results.

    System Frequency












    10 20 30 40 50

    Power Consuption


    Fig 1: Performance Comparison on LDPC and AES the Parameters are Power Consumption and System Frequency














    10 20 30 40 50 60

    Power Consumption

    Fig 2: Performance Comparison on LDPC and AES the Parameters are Power Consumption and eFPGAFrequency


    Thus, we assessed the operational performance of the Morpheus digital signal processor by execution of signal processing diligences and the prospects dealt by our development let in programmability, energy efficiency and performance of the system. The developments, accomplished with respect to gimmicks which are ideally determine their plan space boundaries such as FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays), ASSPs (Application Specific Processors), and GPPs (General Purpose Processors), can be employed to deduce guidelines which help at the exception of the correct computational gimmick. Morpheus is considerably located in such scenario. Regarding the programming productiveness, the distinctive exploitation time of applications on Morpheus is importantly frown than that of FPGAs, primarily trusting on software- oriented programming languages. At the same time, the Morpheus operation and energy efficiency are merely more prominent than GPPs, the latter corresponding, and in few cases exceeding that of FPGAs and our proposed solutions demonstrate that extraneous memory approaches are the main system constriction of Morpheus for most of the applications, by it is even able to attain a performance which pairs between 1,25 and 15 GOPS and an energy efficiency rating from 2 to 50 GOPS/W, while functioning the demonstrated signal processing applications.


  1. M. Paganini, Nomadik®: AMobile multimedia application processor platform, in Proc. Asia South Pacific Design Autom. Conf. (ASP- DAC), 2007, pp. 749750.

  2. S. Dutta, R. Jensen, and A. Rieckmann, Viper: A multiprocessor SOC for advanced set-top box and digital TV systems, IEEE Design Test Comput., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 2131, Sep.Oct. 2001.

  3. M. Y. Wang, C. P. Su, C. L. Horng, C. W. Wu, and C. T. Huang, Single- and multi-core configurable AES architectures for flexible security, IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 541552, Apr. 2010.

  4. C. Toal, K. McLaughlin, S. Sezer, and X. Yang, Design and implementation of a field programmable CRC circuit architecture, IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst., vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 1142 1147, Aug. 2009.

  5. M. Kimura, K. Iwata, S. Mochizuki, H. Ueda, M. Ehama, and H. Watanabe, A full HD multistandard video codec for mobile applications, IEEE Micro, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1827, Nov. 2009.

  6. C. Chien, C. Lin, Y. Shih, H. Chen, C. Huang, C. Yu, C. Chen, C. Cheng, and J. Guo, A 252 kgate/7l mW multi-standard multi-channel video decoder for high definition video applications, ACM Trans. Design Autom. Electron. Syst. (TODAES), vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 117 Jan. 2009.

  7. D. Lattard, E. Beigne, F. Clermidy, Y. Durand, R. Lemaire, and P. Vivet, A reconfigurable baseband platform based on an asynchronous network-on-chip, IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 223 235, Jan. 2008.

  8. R. Baines and D. Pulley, A total cost approach to evaluating different reconfigurable architectures for baseband processing in wireless receivers, IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 105113, Jan. 2003.

  9. A. Baschirotto, F. Campi, R. Castello, G. Cesura, R. Guerrieri, L. Lavagno, A. Lodi, P. Malcovati, and M. Toma, Baseband analog front- end and digital back-end for reconfigurable multi-standard terminals, IEEE Circuits Syst. Mag., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 828, Mar. 2006.

  10. A. DeHon, The density advantage of configurable computing, IEEE Computer, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 4149, Apr. 2000.

  11. R. Hartenstein, A decade of reconfigurable computing: A visionary retrospective, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Design Autom. Test in Euro., 2001, pp. 642649.

  12. D. Rossi, F. Campi, S. Spolzino, S. Pucillo, and R.Guerrieri, A heterogeneous digital signal processor for dynamically reconfigurable computing, IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 16151626, Aug. 2010.

  13. M. Vorbach and J. Becker, Reconfigurable processor architectures for mobile phones, in Proc. IEEE Parallel Distrib. Process. Symp., 2003, pp. 16.

  14. F. Campi, A. Deledda, M. Pizzotti, L. Ciccarelli, C. Mucci, A. Lodi, L. Vanzolini, and A. Vitkovski, A dynamically adaptive DSP for heterogeneous reconfigurable platforms, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.Design Autom. Test in Euro., 2007, pp. 16.

  15. A. Lodi, A. Cappelli, M. Bocchi, C. Mucci, M. Innocenti, C. De Bartolomeis, L. Ciccarelli, R. Giansante, A. Deledda, F. Campi, M. Toma, and R. Guerrieri, XiSystem: AXiRisc-based SoCwith reconfigurable IO module, IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 8597, Jan. 2006.

  16. Abound Logic, France, Abound Logc Embedded FPGA, 2010. [Online]. Available:

  17. M. Kühnle, M. Hübner, J. Becker, A. Deledda, C. Mucci, F. Ries, M. Coppola, L. Pieralisi, R. Locatelli, G. Maruccia, T. DeMarco, and F. Campi, An interconnect strategy for a heterogeneous reconfigurable SoC, IEEE Design Test Comput., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 442451, Oct. 2010.

Leave a Reply