Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Correct
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
Divide-by-N counters are widely implemented using standard 4-bit synchronous counter ICs (or HDL modules) cascaded to expand the count range, then modified to reset at the desired terminal count. This question checks whether two 4-bit counters can serve as the foundation for a divide-by-200 solution.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
The approach is to use the 8-bit count to detect a terminal count (199 or 200, depending on design convention) and synchronously clear (or preset) back to zero. By decoding the desired count and feeding a synchronous reset, the sequence length becomes exactly 200, achieving a ÷200 ratio.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Cascade two 4-bit synchronous counters to obtain 8 bits: count range 0–255.Choose terminal count: typically reset when the count reaches 199 so the sequence length is 200 states (0 through 199).Design decode logic to assert a synchronous reset at count = 199 (1100 0111 for 199 decimal), or preset at an offset if preferred.Verify that all flip-flops share the same clock so reset occurs cleanly on the next edge.
Verification / Alternative check:
Simulation with a testbench counting cycles confirms that the output toggles or a pulse is produced every 200 clocks. Hardware implementations using common 74HC/SN74 synchronous counter families follow the same principle.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Incorrect” ignores the standard modulus reduction technique. “Only correct for ripple counters” is backwards; synchronous counters are preferred. “Only correct if using gray-code counters” is unnecessary; binary counters suffice.
Common Pitfalls:
Using asynchronous clear mid-cycle causing glitches; decoding the wrong terminal count; not meeting setup/hold for the synchronous reset path.
Final Answer:
Correct
Discussion & Comments