Dear all,

I am using Conformal Constraint Designer (Version 17.1) to analyse a SystemVerilog based design.

While performing default HDL checks it finds  some violations (issues) in RTL and complains (warnings, etc) about RTL checks and others.

My questions:

Is there any directive which I can add to RTL (system Verilog) so that particular line of code or signal is ignored or not checked for HDL or RTL checks.

I can set ignore rules in rule manager (gui) but it does not seems effective if code line number changes or new signals are introduced.

What is the best way to customize default_hdl_rules ?

I will be grateful for your guidance.

Thanks for your time.

Hi,

Is it possible to use a SystemVerilog package which is compiled into a library and then use it in a VHDL-2008 design file? Is such mixed-language flow supported?

I'm considering the latest versions of Incisive / Xcelium available today (Oct 2019).

Thank you,

Michal

I have a file that list all the `defines that is used in the current design. This file (define.vh) is generated, like so :

`define MACRO_1 5

`define MACRO_2 1'h0

... etc

But in genus when I run the command

read_hdl define.vh

read_hdl -sv top.sv

The tool work as if the defines never get parsed and returns with unreferenced errors. How can I resolve this? Do I have to include 'define.vh' in all the design files?

The following is valid SystemVerilog:

module mmio
#(parameter PORTS=2,
parameter ADDR_WIDTH=30)
(input logic[ADDR_WIDTH-1:0] addr[PORTS],
output logic ben[PORTS], // Bus enable
output logic men[PORTS]); // Memory enable

always_comb begin
for(int i = 0; i < PORTS; i++) begin
ben[i] = addr[i] >= 'h20080004 && addr[i] < 'h200c0000;
men[i] = ~ben[i];
end
end

endmodule : mmio

And if you instantiate it:

mmio #(1, 30) MMIO(.addr('{scalar_addr}),
.ben('{ben}),
.men('{men}));

Genus returns an error: "Could not synthesize non-constant range values. [CDFG-231] [elaborate]" Is this just not possible in Genus or could it be caused by something else?

hello sir this is Ganesh  from NIT Hamirpur pursuing MTech in VLSI. I have doubt regarding SDF i'm using genus tool for synthesis & after synthesis when i'm generating SDF it is giving delays by default for maximum values but i want all the delays like minimum:Typical:Maximum how can i do this. Is there any provision to set PVT values manually for SDF generation so that i can get all the delay values.

Did you check out the new Pnoise and Hbnoise Choosing Analyses forms in the MMSIM 15.1 and IC6.1.7 /ICADV12.2 releases? These forms have been significantly improved and simplified. The Direct Plot Form has also been enhanced and is much easy to use....(read more)

Hi,

I am trying to use "sed -e 's " from SKILL code to edit unix file "FileA", to replace 3 words in the 2nd line.

How to run below multiple commands using  ipcBeginProcess, Should I use ipcWait or ipcCloseProcess ?

Using && to combine , will that work as I have to work serially on each command. ?

With below code only the first command gets executed. Please advise.

FileA="/user/tmp/text1.txt"

sprintf(Command1 "sed -e '2s/%s/%s/g' %s > %s" comment1 get(form concat("dComment" RDWn))->value FileA FileA)
cid = ipcBeginProcess(Command1)


sprintf(Command2 "sed -e '2s/%s/%s/g' %s > %s"  Time getCurrentTime() FileA FileA)
cid1 = ipcBeginProcess(Command2)


sprintf(Command3 "sed -e '2s/%s/%s/g' %s > %s"  comment2 get(form concat("Duser" RDWn))->value FileA FileA)
cid2 = ipcBeginProcess(Command3)

Thanks,

Ajay

Hi,

I want to convert ircx file(which is from TSMC,inclued EM Information) to ict or emDataFile for Voltus-fi.

I tried many way, but I can not make it. Can anyone give me some advice?

and I  do not installed QRC.

below is some tools installed my server. 

IC617-64b.500.21 is used.

Hi,

I would like to add items like length of selected metal or area also in status tool bar. I have tried below option but I am getting warning as shown below. Could you please give suggestions. 

envGetVal("layout" "statusToolbarFields")

*WARNING* envGetVal: Could not find variable 'statusToolbarFields' in tool[.partition] 'layout'

Regards,

Varsha

It’s now official: Perspec System Verifier is rated the #1 product in the #1 category of Portable Stimulus, according to the 2017 EDA User Survey published on Deepchip.com. There were 33 user responses in favor of Perspec as the #1 tool, and dr...(read more)

It’s always good to hear what real users think of products. Here is a very detailed review (~4000 words) by an Anonymous user, nick named Ant-Man (from the movie). Overall it’s a very strong endorsement of Perspec, and summarize...(read more)

The Cadence® Connections® Verification Program brings together a worldwide network of services, training, and IP development experts that support Cadence verification solutions. The program members help customer accelerate the adoption of new...(read more)

The Accellera Portable Stimulus Working Group met at the DVCon 2018 to move the process forward towards ratification. While we can't predict exactly when it will be ratified, the goal is now more clearly in sight! Cadence booth was busy with a lo...(read more)

CDNLive is a user conference, and verification is one of the largest categories of content with multiple tracks covering multiple days. Portable stimulus is one of the hottest new areas in verification, and continues to be popular in all venues. At l...(read more)

Cadence pulled a fast one at DAC 2018, almost like a bait and switch. We advertised a hands-on workshop to learn about Accellera Portable Stimulus Specification (PSS) v1.0. But we made participants compete head to head, for prizes, and their pride! T...(read more)

Cadence continues to be a leader in SoC verification and has expanded our industry investment in Accellera portable stimulus language standardization. Some customers have expressed reservations that portable stimulus requires the effort of learn...(read more)

https://community.cadence.com/cadence_blogs_8/b/breakfast-bytes/posts/cowos-info

I came across cadence old article that discussing about TSMC advance packaging technology such as InFO & CoWoS. However, I couldn’t find information such as what I/O interface standard is required to realize this multi-chip SiP. For example, Intel using their proprietary AIB interface for EMIB solution.

Besides, any idea if inFO also able to supports multi-chip integration for older node process to new node process such as 40-nm to 16-nm?

Hi all,

I have a question regarding the manufacture : how to check a cluster of same net vias spacing, with have no shape or cline covered

The 2019 HF1 production release for Clarity, Celsius, and Sigrity Tools is now available for download at Cadence Downloads . SIGRITY2019 HF1 For information about supported platforms, compatibility...

[[ Click on the title to access the full blog on the Cadence Community site. ]]

I recently attended a webinar presented by Wally Rhines about his new book, Predicting Semiconductor Business Trends After Moore's Law . Wally was the CEO of Mentor, as you probably know. Now he...

[[ Click on the title to access the full blog on the Cadence Community site. ]]

If I talk about my life, it was much simpler when I used to live with my parents. They took good care of whatever I wanted - in fact, they still do. But now, I am living alone, and sometimes I buy...

[[ Click on the title to access the full blog on the Cadence Community site. ]]

You must deal with many reports in your daily life – for your health, financial accounts, credit, your child’s academic records, and the count goes on. Ever noticed that these reports contain many details, most of which you don’t wa...(read more)

With ECAD-MCAD Library Creator, you can easily create footprints for your parts using thousands of ready-to-use templates that are provided with the tool.(read more)

In my previous blog, I talked about creating a footprint using an existing template in Allegro ECAD-MCAD Library Creator and explained how easily you can access an existing template and create a package from it by just clicking a button. In this blog...(read more)

So, what if you can figure out all that can go wrong when your product is being assembled early on? Not guess but know and correct at an early stage – not wait for the fabricator or manufacturer to send you a long report of what needs to change. That’s why Design for Assembly (DFA) rules(read more)

Other tools allow a sanity check of placement density vs available board space.  There is an older post "Skill code to evaluate all components area (Accumulative Place bound area)"  (9 years ago) that has a couple of examples that no longer work or expired.

This would be useful to provide feedback to schismatic and project managers regarding the component density on the PCB and how it will affect the routing abilities.  Thermal considerations can be evaluated as well 

Has anyone attempted this or still being done externally in spread sheets?

Currently I tried this:

axlDBCreateShape(recPolyPlanes t "BOUNDARY/L02" netName sym1)

I get a atom error on car(sym1)

I can do this "static" using ETCH/L02 with out an issue, but I am trying to avoid doing an axlShapeChangeDynamicType().

Thanks,

Jerry

This is the 18th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

The man who gave us our national anthem, Rabindranath Tagore, once wrote that nationalism was “a great menace.” He went on to say, “It is the particular thing which for years has been at the bottom of India’s troubles.”

Not just India’s, but the world’s: In his book The Open Society and its Enemies, published in 1945 as Adolf Hitler was defeated, Karl Popper ripped into nationalism, with all its “appeals to our tribal instincts, to passion and to prejudice, and to our nostalgic desire to be relieved from the strain of individual responsibility which it attempts to replace by a collective or group responsibility.”

Nationalism is resurgent today, stomping across the globe hand-in-hand with populism. In India, too, it is tearing us apart. But must nationalism always be a bad thing? A provocative new book by the Israeli thinker Yael Tamir argues otherwise.

In her book Why Nationalism, Tamir makes the following arguments. One, nation-states are here to stay. Two, the state needs the nation to be viable. Three, people need nationalism for the sense of community and belonging it gives them. Four, therefore, we need to build a better nationalism, which brings people together instead of driving them apart.

The first point needs no elaboration. We are a globalised world, but we are also trapped by geography and circumstance. “Only 3.3 percent of the world’s population,” Tamir points out, “lives outside their country of birth.” Nutopia, the borderless state dreamed up by John Lennon and Yoko Ono, is not happening anytime soon.

If the only thing that citizens of a state have in common is geographical circumstance, it is not enough. If the state is a necessary construct, a nation is its necessary justification. “Political institutions crave to form long-term political bonding,” writes Tamir, “and for that matter they must create a community that is neither momentary nor meaningless.” Nationalism, she says, “endows the state with intimate feelings linking the past, the present, and the future.”

More pertinently, Tamir argues, people need nationalism. I am a humanist with a belief in individual rights, but Tamir says that this is not enough. “The term ‘human’ is a far too thin mode of delineation,” she writes. “Individuals need to rely on ‘thick identities’ to make their lives meaningful.” This involves a shared past, a common culture and distinctive values.

Tamir also points out that there is a “strong correlation between social class and political preferences.” The privileged elites can afford to be globalists, but those less well off are inevitably drawn to other narratives that enrich their lives. “Rather than seeing nationalism as the last refuge of the scoundrel,” writes Tamir, “we should start thinking of nationalism as the last hope of the needy.”

Tamir’s book bases its arguments on the West, but the argument holds in India as well. In a country with so much poverty, is it any wonder that nationalism is on the rise? The cosmopolitan, globe-trotting elites don’t have daily realities to escape, but how are those less fortunate to find meaning in their lives?

I have one question, though. Why is our nationalism so exclusionary when our nation is so inclusive?

In the nationalism that our ruling party promotes, there are some communities who belong here, and others who don’t. (And even among those who ‘belong’, they exploit divisions.) In their us-vs-them vision of the world, some religions are foreign, some values are foreign, even some culinary traditions are foreign – and therefore frowned upon. But the India I know and love is just the opposite of that.

We embrace influences from all over. Our language, our food, our clothes, our music, our cinema have absorbed so many diverse influences that to pretend they come from a single legit source is absurd. (Even the elegant churidar-kurtas our prime minister wears have an Islamic origin.) As an example, take the recent film Gully Boy: its style of music, the clothes its protagonists wear, even the attitudes in the film would have seemed alien to us a few decades ago. And yet, could there be a truer portrait of young India?

This inclusiveness, this joyous khichdi that we are, is what makes our nation a model for the rest of the world. No nation embraces all other nations as ours does. My India celebrates differences, and I do as well. I wear my kurta with jeans, I listen to ghazals, I eat dhansak and kababs, and I dream in the Indian language called English. This is my nationalism.

Those who try to divide us, therefore, are the true anti-nationals. We must reclaim nationalism from them.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

Hi All,

I'm trying to understand checkpoint concept. When I found save and restart concept in cdnshelp, There is just describing about "$save" and "xrun -r "~~~".

and I found also the below link about save restart and it saves your time.

But I can't find any benefits from my experiment from save&restart article( I fully agree..the article)

Ok, So I'v got some experiment  Here.

1. I declared $save and got the below result as I expected within the simple UVM code.

In UVM code...

$display("TEST1");
$display("TEST2");
$save("SAVE_TEST");
$display("TEST3");
$display("TEST4");

And I restart at "SAVE_TEST" point by xrun -r "SAVE_TEST", I've got the below log

xcelium> run
TEST3
TEST4

Ok, It's Good what I expected.(The concept of Save and Restore is simple: instead of re-initializing your simulation every time you want to run a test, only initialize it once. Then you can save the simulation as a “snapshot” and re-run it from that point to avoid hours of initialization times. It used to be inconvenient. I agree..)

2. But The Problem is that I can't restart with modified code. Let's see the below example.

I just modified TEST5 instead of "TEST3"

$display("TEST1");
$display("TEST2");
$save("SAVE_TEST");
$display("TEST5"); //$display("TEST3");
$display("TEST4");

and I rerun with xrun -r "SAVE_TEST", then I've got the same log

xcelium> run
TEST3
TEST4

There is no "TEST5". Actually I expected "TEST5" in the log.From here We know $save can't support partially modified code after $save. 

Actually, through this, we can approach to our goal about saving developing time. 

So I want to know Is there any possible way that instead of re-initializing our simulation every time we want to run a test, only initialize it once and keep developing(debugging) our code ?

If we do, Could you let me know the simple example?

Hi Team,

I would like to download "Incisive Metrics Center User Guide", I could not find in the cadence/support/manuals. Can you please provide me the link or path to download the same ? I am doing functional coverage with IMC. 

Thank You,

Mahesh

Here are two screen capture of Before and After Autorouting my board. Padstacks have all been revised and corrected. The Capture Schematic is correct. All Footprints have been verified after Padstack revision. a new NETLIST generation have been done after some corrections made in Capture. I have imported the new Logic. I revised my Layout Cross Section as such: TOP, GND, VCC, BOTTOM. Both VCC and GND shapes have been assigned to their respective logical GND and VCC Nets (verified). Yet, I still have the Autorouter to systematically use extra vias to make GND and VCC connections to the VCC and GND planes. Where a simple utilisation of the part padstack inner layer would have been indicated. What Im I missing ?

Hi everybody,

I've created a symbol with custom pad shapes. Everything looks correct in the symbol editor.

And the 3d view looks correct (upside down to show placement)

But when I try to place it on the pcb the 2 "T" shaped pads aren't in the correct location.

I have the pad shape centered on the pad...

with no offset on the padstack editor.

Does anybody know how to fix this?

Thank you!

Please include a brief summary of how to use it.

Just in time for the holidays, inside the posted tar ball is some code to solve 9x9 Sudoku puzzles with the Assertion-Driven Simulation (ADS) capability of Incisive Enterprise Verifier (IEV). Enjoy! Joerg Mueller Solutions Engineer for Team Verify

I want to write a transition coverage on an enumeration. One of the parts of that transition is a queue of the enum. I construct this queue in my constructor. Considering the example below, how would one go about it.

In my coverage bin I can create a range like this A => [queue1Enum[0]:queue1Enum[$]] => [queue2Enum[0]:queue2Enum[$]]. But I only get first and last element then.

typedef enum { red, d_green, d_blue, e_yellow, e_white, e_black } Colors;
 Colors dColors[$];
 Colors eColors[$];
 Lcolors = Colors.first();
 do begin
  if (Lcolors[0].name=='d') begin
   dColors.push_back(Lcolors);
  end
  if (Lcolors[0].name=='e') begin
   eColors.push_back(Lcolors);
  end
 end while(Lcolors != Lcolors.first())

 covergroup cgTest with function sample(Colors c);
   cpTran : coverpoint c{
      bins t[] = (red => dColors =>eColors);   
   }
 endgroup

Hello,

I am trying to import multiple verilog modules defined in a single file with "`define" directive in the top using Verilog In. The code below is an example of what my file contains.

When I use the settings below to import the modules into a library, it imports it correctly but completely ignores all `define directive; hence when I simulate using any of the modules below the simulator errors out requesting these variables.

My question: Is there a way to make Verilog In consider `define directives in every module cell created? 

Code to be imported by Cadence Verilog In:

--------------------------------------------------------

`timescale 1ns/1ps
`define PROP_DELAY 1.1
`define INVALID_DELAY 1.3

`define PERIOD 1.1
`define WIDTH 1.6
`define SETUP_TIME 2.0
`define HOLD_TIME 0.5
`define RECOVERY_TIME 3.0
`define REMOVAL_TIME 0.5
`define WIDTH_THD 0.0

`celldefine
module MY_FF (QN, VDD, VSS, A, B, CK);

inout VDD, VSS;
output QN;
input A, B, CK;
reg NOTIFIER;
supply1 xSN,xRN;
buf IC (clk, CK);
and IA (n1, A, B);
udp_dff_PWR I0 (n0, n1, clk, xRN, xSN, VDD, VSS, NOTIFIER);
not I2 (QN, n0);

wire ENABLE_B ;
wire ENABLE_A ;
assign ENABLE_B = (B) ? 1'b1:1'b0;
assign ENABLE_A = (A) ? 1'b1:1'b0;

specify
$setuphold(posedge CK &&& (ENABLE_B == 1'b1), posedge A,  `SETUP_TIME, `HOLD_TIME, NOTIFIER);
$setuphold(posedge CK &&& (ENABLE_B == 1'b1), negedge A, `SETUP_TIME, `HOLD_TIME, NOTIFIER);
$setuphold(posedge CK &&& (ENABLE_A == 1'b1), posedge B, `SETUP_TIME, `HOLD_TIME, NOTIFIER);
$setuphold(posedge CK &&& (ENABLE_A == 1'b1), negedge B, `SETUP_TIME, `HOLD_TIME, NOTIFIER);
$width(posedge CK,1.0,0.0,NOTIFIER);
$width(negedge CK,1.0,0.0,NOTIFIER);
if (A==1'b0 && B==1'b0)
(posedge CK => (QN:1'bx)) = (1.0, 1.0);
if (A==1'b1 && B==1'b0)
(posedge CK => (QN:1'bx)) = (1.0, 1.0);
if (B==1'b1)
(posedge CK => (QN:1'bx)) = (1.0,1.0);

endspecify

endmodule // MY_FF
`endcelldefine

`timescale 1ns/1ps
`celldefine
module MY_FF2 (QN, VDD, VSS, A, B, CK);

inout VDD, VSS;
output QN;
input A, B, CK;
reg NOTIFIER;
supply1 xSN,xRN;
buf IC (clk, CK);
and IA (n1, A, B);
udp_dff_PWR I0 (n0, n1, clk, xRN, xSN, VDD, VSS, NOTIFIER);
not I2 (QN, n0);

wire ENABLE_B ;
wire ENABLE_A ;
assign ENABLE_B = (B) ? 1'b1:1'b0;
assign ENABLE_A = (A) ? 1'b1:1'b0;

specify
$setuphold(posedge CK &&& (ENABLE_B == 1'b1), posedge A,  `SETUP_TIME, `HOLD_TIME, NOTIFIER);
$setuphold(posedge CK &&& (ENABLE_B == 1'b1), negedge A,  `SETUP_TIME, `HOLD_TIME, NOTIFIER);
$setuphold(posedge CK &&& (ENABLE_A == 1'b1), posedge B,  `SETUP_TIME, `HOLD_TIME, NOTIFIER);
$setuphold(posedge CK &&& (ENABLE_A == 1'b1), negedge B,  `SETUP_TIME, `HOLD_TIME, NOTIFIER);
$width(posedge CK,1.0,0.0,NOTIFIER);
$width(negedge CK,1.0,0.0,NOTIFIER);
if (A==1'b0 && B==1'b0)
(posedge CK => (QN:1'bx)) = (1.0, 1.0);
if (A==1'b1 && B==1'b0)
(posedge CK => (QN:1'bx)) = (1.0, 1.0);
if (B==1'b1)
(posedge CK => (QN:1'bx)) = (1.0,1.0);

endspecify

endmodule // MY_FF2
`endcelldefine

--------------------------------------------------------

I am using the following Cadence versions:

MMSIM Version: 13.1.1.660.isr18

Virtuoso Version: IC6.1.8-64b.500.1

irun Version: 14.10-s039

Spectre Version: 18.1.0.421.isr9

Hello,

I am trying to use calcVal for creating a spec condition from a simulated parameter and although this works perfectly fine in corner simulations, I am having some difficulties in Monte-Carlo (and I will explain).

(I have also read "Using calcVal() and its arguments with ADE Assembler" in Resources > Rapid Adoption Kits but couldn't find any relevant information that would help me address the "issue").

In the above example I am performing a MC simulation which has 2 corners of 10 runs each. I would like to get the minimum value of variable "OC_limit_thres" out of those 10 runs and pass it as my upper limit to a range argument for variable "OC_flag_thres", so the CPK can be calculated.

So the range statement should in reality be like this:

range 32m 44.34m (for corner 0)

range 32m 43.14m (for corner 1)

If I open the Detail - Transpose view in the Results tab, the calcVal("OC_limit_thres" "Currlim_TurnOn_C11") is calculated perfectly fine for each run but here I need one single value out of those 10 runs - in this case the minimum - in order for calcVal to evalute on multiple runs of 1 corner.

How can this be done please?

Thank you in advance for your time.

Hi,

I want to convert ircx file(which from TSMC) to ict or emDataFile for Voltus-fi.

I tried many way, but I can not make it.

and I  do not installed QRC.

below is some tools installed my server. 

IC617-64b.500.21 is used.

Hi, 

I want my layout verified by Quantus QRC. But, I can't find the tool bar on the option list ( as show in the picture)

I have tried to install EXT182 and configured it with iscape already, and also make some path settings on .bashrc, .cshrc. But, when I re-source .cshrc and run virtuoso again, I just can't find the toolbar. 

If you have some methods, please let me know.

Thanks a lot!

Appreciated

My virtuoso version is: ICADV12.3

I have a question regarding simulating IBIS model using Spectre.  IBIS model generation always has the die capacitance included and in the generated IBIS file you will have this value as  “C_comp” value.  Does the Spectre accounts for this capacitance from the IBIS file while computing the time domain voltage waveform during simulation ?  If I add additional capacitance outside in the testbench, to model the die capacitance, then it will be double counting.

Does anyone know if Spectre is already accounting this C_comp during the time domain voltage wave computation from IBIS file, during simulation ?

Hello,

I am using Virtuoso 6.1.7.

I am performing the parasitic extraction of a MOM cap array of 32 caps. I use Quantus QRC and I enable field solver. I select “QRCFS” for field solver type and “High” for field solver accuracy. The unit MOM cap is horizontally and vertically symmetric. The array looks like the sketch below and there are no other structures except the unit caps:

Rationally speaking, the capacitance values of the unit caps should be symmetric with respect to a vertical symmetry axis that is between cap16 and cap17 (shown with dashed red line). For example,

the capacitance of cap1 should be equal to the capacitance of cap32

the capacitance of cap2 should be equal to the capacitance of cap31

etc. as there are no other structures around the caps that might create some asymmetry.

Nevertheless, what I observe is the following after the parasitic extraction:

As it can be seen, the result is not symmetric contrary to what is expected. I should also add that I do not observe this when I perform parasitic extraction with no filed solver.

Why do I get this result? Is it an artifact resulting from the field solver tool (my conclusion was yes but still it must be verified)? If not, how can something like this happen?

Many thanks in advance.

Best regards,

Can

Hi Everyone,

Many of you would have heard about the Cadence Stylus Common UI and are wondering what it is and what the advantages might be to use it versus legacy UI.

The webinar answers the following questions:

• Why did Cadence develop Stylus UI and what is Stylus Common UI?
• How does someone invoke and use the Stylus Common UI?
• What are some of the important and useful features of the Stylus Common UI?
• What are the key ways in which the Stylus Common UI is different from the default UI?​

If you want to learn more about Stylus UI in the context of implementation, view the 45-minute recorded webinar on the Cadence support site.

Related Resource

Innovus Block Implementation with Stylus Common UI

Vinita Nelson

The Cadence® Genus  Synthesis Solution, Innovus  Implementation System, and Tempus  Timing Signoff Solution have a lot of shared functionality, but in the past, the separate legacy user interfaces (UIs) created a lot of differences.

A new common user interface that the Genus solution shares with the Innovus and Tempus solutions streamlines flow development and simplifies usability across the complete Cadence digital flow. The Stylus Common UI provides a next-generation synthesis-to-signoff flow with unified database access, MMMC timing configuration and reporting, and low-power design initialization.

This webinar answers the following questions:

• What is the Stylus Common UI and why did Cadence develop it?
• How does someone invoke and use the Stylus Common UI?
• What are some of the important and useful features of the Stylus Common UI?
• What are key ways the Stylus Common UI is different from the Legacy UI?

If you want to learn more about Stylus UI in the context of Genus Synthesis Solution, refer to 45-minute recorded webinar on https://support.cadence.com (Cadence login required).

Video Title: Webinar: Genus Synthesis Solution—Introduction to the Stylus Common UI (Video)

Direct Link: https://support.cadence.com/apex/ArticleAttachmentPortal?id=a1O0V000009MoGIUA0&pageName=ArticleContent

Related Resources

If interested in the full course, including lab content, please contact your Cadence representative or email a request to training_enroll@cadence.com. You can also enroll in the course on http://learning.cadence.com.​

Enhance the Genus Synthesis experience with videos: Genus Synthesis Solution: Video Library

For any questions, general feedback, or future blog topic suggestions, please leave a comment. 

Joules RTL Power Solution provides a cockpit for RTL designers to explore and optimize the power efficiency of their designs. But this capability is now not just limited to RTL designers!! Yes, you as a synthesis designer too can use the power analysis capabilities of Joules from within Genus Synthesis Solution!!

But:

• How to do it?
• Is there any specific switch required?
• What is the flow/script when Joules is used from within Genus?
• Are all the Joules commands supported?

To answer to all these questions is just a click away in the form of video on “Genus-Joules Integration”; refer it on https://support.cadence.com (Cadence login required).

Video Title: Genus-Joules Integration (Video)

Direct Link: https://support.cadence.com/apex/ArticleAttachmentPortal?id=a1O0V0000091CnXUAU&pageName=ArticleContent

Related Resources

Enhance the Genus Synthesis experience with videos: Genus Synthesis Solution: Video Library

Enhance the Joules experience with videos: Joules RTL Power Solution: Video Library

For any questions, general feedback, or future blog topic suggestions, please leave a comment. 

The complexity and size of mixed-signal designs in wireless, power management, automotive, and other fast growing applications requires continued advancements in a mixed-signal verification methodology. An SoC, in these fast growing applications, incorporates a large number of analog and mixed-signal (AMS) blocks/IPs, some acquired from IP providers, some designed, often concurrently. AMS IP must be verified independently, but this is not sufficient to ensure an SoC will function properly and all scenarios of interaction among many different AMS IP blocks at full chip / SoC level must be verified thoroughly. To reduce an overall verification cycle, AMS IP and SoC verification teams must work in parallel from early stages of the design. Easier said than done! We will outline a methodology than can help.

AMS designers verify their IP meets required specifications by running a testbench they develop for standalone / out of-context verification. Typically, an AMS IP as analog-centric, hierarchal design in schematic, composed of blocks represented by transistor, HDL and behavioral description verified in Virtuoso® Analog Design Environment (ADE) using Spectre AMS Designer simulation. An SoC verification team typically uses UVM SystemVerilog testbech at full chip level where the AMS IP is represented with a simple digital or real number model running Xcelium /DMS simulation from the command line.

Ideally, AMS designers should also verify AMS IP function properly in the context of full-chip integration, but reproducing an often complex UVM SystemVerilog testbench and bringing over top-level design description to an analog-centric environment is not a simple task.

Last year, Cadence partnered with Infineon on a project with a goal to automate the reuse of a top-level testbench in AMS verification. The automation enabled AMS verification engineers to automatically configure setup for verification runs by assembling all necessary options and files from the AMS IP Virtuoso GUI and digital SoC top-level command line configurations. The benefits of this method were:

• AMS verification engineers did not need to re-create complex stimuli representing interaction of their IP at the top level
• Top-level verification stays external to the AMS IP verification environment and continues to be managed by the SoC verification team, but can be reused by the AMS IP team without manual overhead
• AMS IP is verified in-context and any inconsistencies are detected earlier in the verification process
• Improved productivity and overall verification time

For more details, please see Infineon’s CDNLlive presentation.

Typically, analog designers verify their AMS IP in schematic driven, interactive environment, while SoC designers use a UVM SystemVerilog testbench ran from a command line. In our last MS blog, we talked about automation for reusing SystemVerilog testbench by analog designers in order to verify AMS IP in exactly same context as in its SoC integration, hence reducing surprises and unnecessary iterations.

But, what about other direction: selecting proper AMS IP views for SoC Verification? Manually export netlist from Virtuoso and then manually assemble together all of the files for use with in command line driven flow? Often, there are multiple views for the same instance (RNM, analog behavioral model, transistor netlist). Which one to pick? Who is supposed to update configuration files? We often work concurrently and update the AMS IP views frequently. Obviously, manually selecting correct and most up-to-date AMS IP views for SoC Verification is tedious and error prone. Thanks to Cadence Innovation, there is a better way!

Cadence has developed a Command-Line IP Selector (CLIPS) product as part of the Virtuoso^® environment, which:

• Bridges the gap between MS SoC command-line setup and the Virtuoso-based analog mixed-signal configuration
• Allows seamless importing of AMS IP from the Virtuoso environment into an existing digital verification setup
• Provides a GUI-based and command-line use model, flexible to fit into an existing design flow methodologyCLIPS reads MS SoC command (irun) files, identifies required AMS IP modules, uses Virtuoso ADE setup files to properly netlist required modules, and pulls the AMS IP out of the Virtuoso environment. All necessary files are properly extracted/prepared and package as required for the MS SoC command line verification run. CLIPS setup can be saved and rerun as a batch process to ensure the latest IP from the hierarchy is being simulated.

For more details, please see CLIPS Rapid Adoption Kit at Cadence Online Support page

Analog and Mixed-signal (AMS) designs are increasingly using active power management to minimize power consumption. Typical mixed-signal design uses several power domains and operate in a dozen or more power modes including multiple functional, standby and test modes. To save power, parts of design not active in a mode are shut down or may operate at reduced supply voltage when high performance is not required. These and other low power techniques are applied on both analog and digital parts of the design. Digital designers capture power intent in standard formats like Common Power Format (CPF), IEEE1801 (aka Unified Power Format or UPF) or Liberty and apply it top-down throughout design, verification and implementation flows. Analog parts are often designed bottom-up in schematic without upfront defined power intent. Verifying that low power intent is implemented correctly in mixed-signal design is very challenging. If not discovered early, errors like wrongly connected power nets, missing level shifters or isolations cells can cause costly rework or even silicon re-spin. 

Mixed-signal designers rely on simulation for functional verification. Although still necessary for electrical and performance verification, running simulation on so many power modes is not an effective verification method to discover low power errors. It would be nice to augment simulation with formal low power verification but a specification of power intent for analog/mixed-signal blocs is missing. So how do we obtain it? Can we “extract” it from already built analog circuit? Fortunately, yes we can, and we will describe an automated way to do so!

Virtuoso Power Manager is new tool released in the Virtuoso IC6.1.8 platform which is capable of managing power intent in an Analog/MS design which is captured in Virtuoso Schematic Editor. In setup phase, the user identifies power and ground nets and registers special devices like level shifters and isolation cells. The user has the option to import power intent into IEEE1801 format, applicable for top level or any of the blocks in design. Virtuoso Power Manager uses this information to traverse the schematic and extract complete power intent for the entire design. In the final stage, Virtuoso Power Manager exports the power intent in IEEE1801 format as an input to the formal verification tool (Cadence Conformal-LP) for static verification of power intent.

Cadence and Infineon have been collaborating on the requirements and validation of the Virtuoso Power Manager tool and Low Power verification solution on real designs. A summary of collaboration results were presented at the DVCon conference in Munich, in October of 2018.  Please look for the paper in the conference proceedings for more details. Alternately, can view our Cadence webinar on Verifying Low-Power Intent in Mixed-Signal Design Using Formal Method for more information.