Hello Spectre RF Users, Next week is my all time favorite technical conference - the International Microwave Symposium IMS2016 , May 22-27 in San Francisco, CA at the Moscone Center. If you're at the conference, please stop by the Cadence booth and...(read more)

Hi Team,

Problem Statement:In hierarchical layout, I want to get BBOX of particular layer without actually flattening the layout.

Description:The layer can be at any hierarchical depth i.e both from PCELL or shapes but at top level if they are overlapping then I want the merged BBOX.

Now, I am able to get BBOX of all the shapes present at different hierarchy.But i finding issue in merging BBOX.

Please can help me on the same issue as I require efficient way to merge the BBOX because list containing the BBOX is huge.

Thanks in advance.

Regrads,

Prasanna

Inside the scope of isCallable there is code which I don't want to be executed.

The procedure named in isCallable to-day is callable.

I want to make that procedure so it cannot be called.  How do I do that?

I can't change the isCallable line or the scope.  I want to change its behavior by making sure that the procedure does not exist (obviously this would be done before the code is executed).

Hi,

I am running simulation in ADEXL and need a custom function for VIVA to apply same procedure to all signals saved in output. For instance, I have clock nets and I want to get all of them and look at the duty-cycle, edge rate etc.

It is a little more involved than about part since I have some regex and setof to filter before processing but if I can get all signals for current history, I can postprocess them later.

In ocean, I am just doing outputs() and getting all saved signals but I was able to do this in VIVA calculator due to the difficulties in getting current history, test name and opening result directory

thanks

yayla

Version Info:

ICADV12.3 64b 500.21

spectre -W =>

Tool 'cadenceMMSIM' Current project version '16.10.479'
sub-version  16.1.0.479.isr9

Can anybody assist with a Skill code /function to disable all callbacks

Here we conclude the blog series and highlight the results of Mediatek 's use of Cadence Perspec™ System Verifier for their SoC level verification. In case you missed it, Part 1 of the blog is here , and Part 2 of the blog is here . One of their key...(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)

There’s nothing like the heat of a DAC demo to stress new technology and the engineers behind it! Such was the case at DAC 2018 at the new locale of Moscone Center West, San Francisco. Cadence and AMIQ were two of several vendors who announced ...(read more)

Learn about the challenges and solutions for integrating and verification PCIe(r) Gen4 into an Arm-Based Server SoC. Listen to this relatively short webinar by Arm and Cadence, as they describe the collaboration and results, including methodology and...(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)

In my predictions for 2018 I had identified five key trends driving verification in 2018 – Security, Safety, Application Specificity, Processor Ecosystems and System Design Enablement, all centered around ecosystems. Looking back now as the yea...(read more)

A little bit of everything in the blog today: PSS is All Over As someone that was involved with UVM and PSS, both becoming Accellera standards, it is exciting to see both growing independently and together. With PSS we had a massive amount of papers ...(read more)

Is there any way I can find duplicated shapes?

I would like to find two or more shapes are identical and they are placed in the same location.

I'm trying to generate IBIS models for the parts that I'm designing.  I'm designing using CADENCE Virtuoso.  

I'm wondering if there is a tutorial for generating IBIS models in CADENCE Virtuoso.   Please pardon me if my question is broad.      

Today, we are living in the era where whatever we think of as an idea is not far from being implemented…thanks to machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) entering into the...

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

Our customers’ tests have become more complex, longer, and consume more resources than before. This increases the need to optimize the regression while not compromising on coverage. Some advanced...

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

Complexity is driving the urgency for advanced artificial intelligence systems more than ever—and that means someone has to supply the tools to create those systems. Cadence is up to the task: we’ve been expanding our AI offerings. If you haven’t already seen what Cadence can do for your AI needs, or if you’re not quite up-to-date on this whole AI boom, let this presentation given by K.T. Moore at the Cadence Theater at DAC bring you up to speed.

The technology behind AI isn’t as new as you’d think—the principles that govern how AI learns have been in development since 1959, when Arthur Samuel defined the concept of “machine learning.” At the time, there was nothing even resembling the necessary compute power to put Samuel’s concepts into practice—but now we can. AI designs are huge, and they’re massively parallel—simulating them on older computers and simulators would have taken ages; never mind how long it would take to do some by-hand measure like they had to do in the '60s.

But with advancements in server technology and the parallelization technology in products like Xcelium Parallel Logic Simulator and JasperGold smart technology, plus hardware-based engines like the Palladium and Protium platforms, verifying AI designs is not only possible—it’s easy.  But, read on, its not just about simulation technology.

AI tech is flooding the industry. It’s applicable to almost every vertical—cloud computing can use AI to intelligently manage a user’s required resources, consumer electronics are using it to tailor a user experience based on a whole host of collected data, automotive companies want to use AI to drive cars, healthcare to assist in diagnoses given a set of symptoms and a database of other, similar patients—and that’s saying nothing of the multitude of industrial applications. AI is also useful in the creation of developers’ tools themselves. Part of what’s causing the semiconductor industry boom is just this—an exploding interest in AI chips. And with 5G technology imminent, and with the looming billion-gate plus sizes of the SoCs that implement 5G, AI-assisted developers' tools might need to become the norm, not an outlier.

So: in all of this, where is Cadence?

Cadence is focusing its efforts on two areas, dubbed “machine learning inside” and “machine learning outside.” ML inside in the digital design flow refers to improving PPA, faster engines, and better testing and diagnostics. None of this physically affects how you use a tool, but it makes using that tool a much better experience. ML outside talks about the design flow in general, working toward an automated design flow, as well as productivity improvements across the flow. These things do change how you use a tool, but don’t worry, it’s all for the better.

Additionally, Cadence is working to improve design enablement; that is, hardware and software co-design. Smart Genus and Innovus solutions make designing your SoC easier than ever—using the full flow can result in up to a 21% PPA gain.

If you’re looking specifically for IP to enable AI on your SoC, the Tensilica DNA 100 processor has you covered, too. It’s great for companies designing edge or AI chips, offers great compression rates and efficient power usage, and has 4.7X the performance of other AI SoC IP on similar array sizes.

Cadence has you covered no matter where you’re going in this new world of AI systems—with our AI-enabled tools, IP,  and our strong partner ecosystem, you can be at ease knowing you’ll be supported no matter how complex your needs are.

Curious about what’s going on behind the scenes with verification? Bernard Murphy, Jim Hogan, and our own Paul Cunningham are on the case with the “Innovation in Verification” blog stream over at semiwiki.com. Every month, this trio reviews a newly-published paper in academia that pertains to verification and discusses its implications. Be sure to stop by—it’s a great place to see what might be coming down the pipeline someday.

This month, they discuss the implications of metamorphic testing. The purpose of metamorphic testing is to define a verification approach where is there is no “golden reference.” This situation comes up a lot now as designs grow in complexity, and it begs the question: “how does one know the design is verified if there is no standard to compare to?”. Metamorphic testing addresses the problem of not having a “gold standard” to compare to by comparing the results of related tests instead. The paper reviewed by this team used metamorphic testing to study methods of managing JavaScript tags.

Paul saw this as a valuable new class of coverage. Metamorphic testing represents a way to create better distribution analyses through understanding the relationships among tests. This can reveal critical-but-complex issues that traditional verification methods may overlook. He saw this as an emerging class of coverage that new verification tools could be built around. Paul asserted that a future metamorphic-testing-based tool’s main contribution to the field of verification would be to better analyze noisy performance results where the noise is multi-modal. It could be useful in detecting race conditions and similar hard-to-debug anomalies. Paul also sees metamorphic testing as ripe for ML techniques. Overall—Paul sees a bright future for metamorphic testing in verification.

Jim is reminded of Solido and Spice—these metamorphic testing capabilities are “more than just a feature”—they might be a product. Maybe even a whole new class of verification tools, as Paul said.

Bernard says that this topic is “too rich to address in one blog”, so be sure to head over to the post to see more of what the future has in store for verification.

Our customers’ tests have become more complex, longer, and consume more resources than before. This increases the need to optimize the regression while not compromising on coverage.

Some advanced customers of Specman use Machine Learning based solutions to optimize the regressions while some use simpler solutions. Based on a request of an advanced customer, we added a new Coverage API in Specman 19.09 called Coverage Callback. In 20.03, we have further enhanced this API by adding more options. Now there are two Coverage APIs that provide coverage information during the run (the old scan_cover API and this new Callback API). This blog presents these two APIs and compares between them while focusing on the newer one.

Before we get into the specifics of each API, let’s discuss what is common between these APIs and why we need them. Typically, people observe the coverage model after the test ends, and get to know the overall contribution of the test to the coverage. With these two APIs, you can observe the coverage model during the test, and hence, get more insight into the test progress.

Are you wondering about what you can do with this information? Let’s look at some examples.

1. Recognize cases when the test continues to run long after it already reached its coverage goal.
2. View the performance of the coverage curve. If a test is “stuck” at the same grade for a long time, this might indicate that the test is not very good and is just a waste of resource.

These analyses can be performed in the test itself, and then a test can decide to either stop the run, or change something in it configuration, or – post run. You can also present them visually for some analysis, as shown in the blog: Analyze Your Coverage with Python.

scan_cover API (or “Scanning the Coverage Model”)

With this API you can get the current status for any cover group or item you are interested in at any point in time during the test (by calling scan_cover()). It is very simple to use; however it has performance penalty. For getting the coverage grade of any cover group during the test, you should
1. Trigger the scan_cover at any time when you want the coverage model to be scanned.
2. Implement the scan_cover related methods, such as start_item() and end_bucket(). In these methods, you can query the current grade of group/item/bucket.
The blog mentioned earlier: Analyze Your Coverage with Python describes the details and provides an example.

Callback API

The Callback API enables you to get a callback for a desired cover group(s), whenever it is sampled. This API also provides various query methods for getting coverage related information such as what the current sampled value is. So, in essence, it is similar to scan_cover API, but as the phrase says: “same same but different”:

1. Callback API has almost no performance penalty while scan_cover API does.
2. Callback API contains a richer set of query methods that provide a lot of information about the current sampled value (vs just the grade with scan_cover).
3. Using scan_cover API, you decide when you want to query the coverage information (you call scan_cover), while with the Callback API you query the coverage information when the coverage is sampled (from do_callback). So, scan_cover gives you more flexibility, but you do need to find the right timing for this call.

There is no absolute advantage of either of these APIs, this only depends on what you want to do.  

Callback API details

The Callback API is based on a predefined struct called: cover_sampling_callback. In order to use this API, you need to:

1. Define a struct inheriting cover_sampling_callback (cover_cb_save_data below)
   1. Extend the predefined do_callback() method. This method is a hook being called whenever any of the cover groups that are registered to the cover_sampling_callback instance is being sampled.
   2. From do_callback() you can access coverage data by using queries such as: is_currently_per_type(), get_current_group_grade() and get_current_cover_group() (as in the example below) and many more such as: get_relevant_group_layers() and get_simple_cross_sampled_bucket_name().
2. Register the desired cover group(s) to this struct instance using the register() method.

Take a look at the following code:

// Define a coverage callback.
// Its behavior – print to screen the current grade.
struct cover_cb_save_data like cover_sampling_callback {
    do_callback() is only {
       // In this example, we care only about the per_type grade, and not per_instance
       if is_currently_per_type() {           
            var cur_grade : real = get_current_group_grade();
            sys.save_data (get_current_cover_group().get_name(), cur_grade);
        };//if
    };//do_callback()
};// cover_cb_send_data


extend sys {
    !cb : cover_cb_save_data;

   // Instantiate the coverage callback, and register to it two of my coverage groups
    run() is also {
       cb  = new  with {
        var gr1:=rf_manager.get_struct_by_name("packet").get_cover_group("packet_cover");
        .register(gr1);
        var gr2:=rf_manager.get_struct_by_name("sys").get_cover_group("mem_cover");
       .register(gr2);
       };//new  
    };//run()

  save_data(group_name : string, group_grade : real) is {
        //here you either print the values to the screen, update a graph you show or save to a db 
  };// save_data
};//sys

In the blog Analyze Your Coverage with Python mentioned above, we show an example of how you can use the scan_cover API to extract coverage information during the run, and then use the Specman-Python API to display the coverage interactively during the run (using plotting Python library - matplotlib). If you find this usage interesting and you want to use the same example, by the Callback API instead of the scan_cover API, you can download the full example from GIT from here: https://github.com/efratcdn/cover_callback.

Specman Team

Imagine you are on a vacation with your family, and suddenly, your phone starts buzzing. You pick it up and what are you looking at is a bunch of pending, unanswered e-mails. You start recollecting the checklist you had made before taking off only to realize that you haven’t put on the automatic replies! (read more)

All engineers can enhance their mixed-signal low-power structural verification productivity by learning while doing with a PIEA RAK (Power Intent Export Assistant Rapid Adoption Kit). They can verify the mixed-signal chip by a generating macromodel for their analog block automatically, and run it through Conformal Low Power (CLP) to perform a low power structural check.  

The power structure integrity of a mixed-signal, low-power block is verified via Conformal Low Power integrated into the Virtuoso Schematic Editor Power Intent Export Assistant (VSE-PIEA). Here is the flow.

Applying the flow iteratively from lower to higher levels can verify the power structure.

Cadence customers can learn more in a Rapid Adoption Kit (RAK) titled IC 6.1.5 Virtuoso Schematic Editor XL PIEA, Conformal Low Power: Mixed-Signal Low Power Structural Verification.

• To read the overview presentation, click on following link: PIEA Overview
• To download this PIEA RAK click on following link: PIEA RAK Download

The RAK includes Rapid Adoption Kit with demo design (instructions are provided on how to setup the user environment). It Introduces the Power Intent Export Assistant (PIEA) feature that has been implemented in the Virtuoso IC615 release.  The power intent extracted is then verified by calling Conformal Low Power (CLP) inside the Virtuoso environment.

• Last Update: 11/15/2012.
• Validated with IC 6.1.5 and CLP 11.1

The RAK uses a sample test case to go through PIEA + CLP flow as follows:

• Setup for PIEA
• Perform power intent extraction
• CPF Import: It is recommended to Import macro CPF, as oppose to designing CPF for sub-blocks. If you choose to import design CPF files please make sure the design CPF file has power domain information for all the top level boundary ports
• Generate macro CPF and design CPF
• Perform low power verification by running CLP

It is also recommended to go through older RAKs as prerequisites.

• Conformal Low Power, RTL Compiler and Incisive: Low Power Verification for Beginners
• Conformal Low Power: CPF Macro Models
• Conformal Low Power and RTL Compiler: Low Power Verification for Advanced Users

To access all these RAKs, visit our RAK Home Page to access Synthesis, Test and Verification flow

Note: To access above docs, use your Cadence credentials to logon to the Cadence Online Support (COS) web site. Cadence Online Support website https://support.cadence.com/ is your 24/7 partner for getting help and resolving issues related to Cadence software. If you are signed up for e-mail notifications, you can receive new solutions, Application Notes (Technical Papers), Videos, Manuals, and more.

You can send us your feedback by adding a comment below or using the feedback box on Cadence Online Support.

Sumeet Aggarwal

On May 7, 2013 Cadence announced a 30% productivity gain in the June 2013 Incisive Enterprise Simulator 13.1 release.  Advanced debug visualization, faster turn-around time, and the extension of eight years of low-power verification innovation to IEEE 1801/UPF are the key capabilities in the release.

When we talk about low-power verification its easy to equate it with simulation.  For certain, simulation is the heart of a low-power verification solution. Simulation enables engineers to run their design in the context of power intent.  The challenge is that a simulation-only approach is inadequate. For example, if engineers could achieve SoC quality by verifying the individual function of each power control module (PCM), then simulation could be enough.  For a single power domain, simulation can be enough. 

However, when the SoC has multiple power domains -- and we have seen SoCs with hundreds of them -- engineers have to check the PCMs and all of the arcs between the power modes.  These SoCs often synchronize some of the domain switching to reduce overall complexity, creating the potential for signal skew errors on the control signals for the connected domains.  Managing these complexities requires verification methodologies including advanced debug, verification planning, assertion-based verification, Universal Verification Methodology - Low Power (UVM-LP), and more (see Figure 1).

Figure 1:  Comprehensive Low-Power Verification 

But even advanced verification methodologies on top of simulation aren't enough.  For example, the state machine that defines the legal and illegal power mode transitions is often written in software. The speed and capacity of the Palladium emulation platform is ideal to verify in this context, and it is integrated with simulation sharing debug, UVM acceleration, and static checks for low-power. And, it reports verification progress into a holistic plan for the SoC.  Another example is the ability to compare the design in the implementation flow with the design running in simulation to make sure that what we verify is what we intend to build.

Taken together, verification across multiple engines provides the comprehensive low-power verification needed for today's advanced node SoCs.  That's the heart of this low-power verification announcement. 

Another point you may have noticed is the extension of the Common Power Format (CPF) based power-aware support in the Incisive Enterprise Simulator to IEEE 1801.  We chose to bring IEEE 1801 to simulation first because users like you sometimes need to mix vendors for regression flows.  Over time, Cadence will extend the low-power capabilities throughout its product suite to IEEE 1801.

If you are using CPF today, you already have the best low-power solution. The evidence is clear:  the upcoming IEEE 1801-2013 update includes many of the CPF features contributed to 1801/UPF to enable methodology convergence.  Since you already have those features in the CPF flow, any migration before you have a mature IEEE 1801-2013 tool flow would reduce the functionality you have today.

If you are using Unified Power Format (UPF) 1.0 today, you want to start planning your move toward the IEEE 1801-2013 standard.  A good first step would be to move to the IEEE 1801-2009 standard.  It fills holes in the earlier UPF 1.0 definition.  While it does lack key features in -2013, it is an improvement that will make the migration to -2013 easier. The Incisive 13.1 release will run both UPF 1.0 and IEEE 1801-2009 power intent today.

Over the next few weeks you'll see more technical blogs about the low-power capabilities coming in the Incisive 13.1 release.  You can also join us on June 19 for a webinar that will introduce those capabilities using the reference design supplied with the Incisive Enterprise Simulator release.

=Adam "The Jouler" Sherer

(Yes, "Sherilog" is still here.  :-) )

DAC is right around the corner! On the demo floor at Cadence® Booth #2214, we will demonstrate how to use the Cadence mixed-signal and low-power solution to design, verify, and implement a microcontroller-based mixed-signal design. The demo design architecture is very similar to practical designs of many applications like power management ICs, automotive controllers, and the Internet of Things (IoT). Cadene tools demonstrated in this design include Virtuoso® Schematic Editor, Virtuoso Analog Design Environment, Virtuoso AMS Designer, Virtuoso Schematic Model Generator, Virtuoso Power Intent Assistant, Incisive® Enterprise Simulator with DMS option, Virtuoso Digital Implementation, Virtuoso Layout Suite, Encounter® RTL Compiler, Encounter Test, and Conformal Low Power. An extended version of this demo will also be shown at the ARM® Connected Community Pavilion Booth #921.

For additional highlights on Cadence mixed-signal and low-power solutions, stop by our booth for:

• The popular book, Mixed-signal Methodology Guide, which will be on sale during DAC week!
• A sneak preview of the eBook version of the Mixed-signal Methodology Guide
• Customer presentations at the Cadence DAC Theater
  • 9am, Tuesday, June 4  ARM  Low-Power Verification of A15 Hard Macro Using CLP 
  • 10:30am, Tuesday, June 4  Silicon Labs  Power Mode Verification in Mixed-Signal Chip
  • 12:00pm, Tuesday, June 4  IBM  An Interoperable Flow with Unified OA and QRC Technology Files
  • 9am, Wednesday, June 5  Marvell  Low-Power Verification Using CLP
  • 4pm, Wednesday, June 5  Texas Instruments  An Inter-Operable Flow with Unified OA and QRC Technology Files
• Partner presentations at the Cadence DAC Theater
  • 10am, Monday, June 3  X-Fab  Rapid Adoption of Advanced Cadence Design Flows Using X-FAB's AMS Reference Kit
  • 3:30pm, Monday, June 3  TSMC TSMC Custom Reference Flow for 20nm -  Cadence Track
  • 9:30am,Tuesday, June 4  TowerJazz   Substrate Noise Isolation Extraction/Model Using Cadence Analog Flow
  • 12:30pm, Wednesday, June 5  GLOBALFOUNDRIES  20nm/14nm Analog/Mixed-signal Flow
  • 2:30pm, Wednesday, June 5  ARM  Cortex®-M0 and Cortex-M0+: Tiny, Easy, and Energy-efficient Processors for Mixed-signal Applications
• Technology sessions at suites
  • 10am, Monday, June 3    Low-power Verification of Mixed-signal Designs
  • 2pm, Monday, June 3      Advanced Implementation Techniques for Mixed-signal Designs
  • 2pm, Monday, June 3      LP Simulation: Are You Really Done?
  • 4pm, Monday, June 3      Power Format Update: Latest on CPF and IEEE 1801  
  • 11am, Wednesday, June 5   Mixed-signal Verification
  • 11am, Wednesday, June 5   LP Simulation: Are You Really Done?
  • 4pm, Wednesday, June 5   Successful RTL-to-GDSII Low-Power Design (FULL)
  • 5pm, Wednesday, June 5   Custom/AMS Design at Advanced Nodes

We will also have three presentations at the Si2 booth (#1427):

• 10:30am, Monday, June 3   An Interoperable Implementation Solution for Mixed-signal Design
• 11:30am, Tuesday, June 4   Low-power Verification for Mixed-signal Designs Using CPF
• 10:30am, Wednesday, June 5   System-level Low-power Verification Using Palladium

We have a great program at DAC. Click the link for complete Cadence DAC Theater and Technology Sessions. Look forward to seeing you at DAC!     

Freescale was a successful Incisive® simulation CPF low-power user when they decided to step up their game. In November 2013, at CDNLive India, they presented a paper explaining how they improved their ability to find power-related bugs using a more sophisticated verification flow.  We were able to catch up with Abhinav Nawal just after his presentation to capture this video explaining the key points in his paper.

Abhinav had already established a low-power simulation process using directed tests for a design with power intent captured in CPF. While that is a sound approach, it tends to focus on the states associated with each power control module and at least some of the critical power mode changes.  Since the full system can potentially exercise unforeseen combinations of power states, the directed test approach may be insufficient. Abhinav built a more complete low-power verification approach rooted in a low-power verification plan captured in Cadence® Incisive Enterprise Manager.  He still used Incisive Enterprise Simulator and the SimVision debugger to execute and debug his design, but he also added Incisive Metric Center to analyze coverage from his low-power tests and connect that data back to the low-power verification plan.  As a result, he was able to find many critical system-level corner case issues, which, left undetected, would have been catastrophic for his SoC.  In the paper, Abhinav presents some of the key problems this approach was able to find.

You can achieve results similar to Abhinav. Incisive Enterprise Simulator can generate a low-power verification plan from the power format, power-aware assertions, and it can collect power-aware knowledge.  To get started, you can use the Incisive Low-Power Simulation Rapid Adoption Kit (RAK) for CPF available on Cadence Online Support.

Just another happy Cadence low-power verification user!

Regards,

Adam "The Jouler" Sherer  

Hello, i saw that MAESTRO is a plotting addon is it a part of ADE EXPLORER?

i cant see the relation between the two.i started to read manual and regarding MAESTRO i only see code.

is there some simple examples?
Thanks.

Hello, i have a realy mistick thing going with copying libraries in cadence virtuoso,

When i copy straight forwart the whole library it gives me a warning that accsess was denied,but when i go into the library and copy it as a single file, then it goes fine.

another problem is it doesnt show in the massage console  ALL the files which could not be copied.(which is the much bigger problem,becuase i would have to pass threw all the subdirectories to verify if all files are there)

Is there a way to see which files wasnt able to be copied?

Thanks. 

Hi,
I am new to the circuit design and troubleshooting. My project is to design a trans-impedance amplifier using Cadence that can amplify a signal coming from a photodiode. I started out with the regulated cascode configuration as shown in the circuit below. I look at the frequency response using AC simulation and it looks like a high pass (/net 5). The results doesn ot show any gain (transient response), or expected low-pass roll-off in the AC response.

First thing, I looked into the operating regions of the MOSFETs and adjusted the input dc voltage of the Vsin to 0.5 to make sure that the T0, T1 mosfets are in saturation(checked this with the print->dc operating points). Beyond this point, I am not sure on how to proceed and interpret the results to make changes. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

-Rakesh.

Hello , i am trying to extract netlist from a circuit  in assembler

I have found the manual shown bellow , however there is no such option in tools in assembler.

how do i view the NETLIST of this circuit?

Thanks.

ASSEMBLER VIEW menu

Virtuoso Version -- IC6.1.7-64b.500.23

Cadence Spectre Version -- 17.10.515

I have a very simple circuit. Please find attached. It is basically a resistor across a port. I run a S-param simulation and can plot the S-params, but unfortunately not the Z-param or Y-param. 

/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/33/Capture_5F00_Sch.JPG

/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/33/Capture_5F00_Error.JPG

Can anyone point me in the correct direction to sort out this problem? The zpm does work in another design environment, but not in the new design environment (a new project). The virtuoso and the cadence-spectre versions match in both the project environments. I am at a loss at what to look for. 

Hello, I have a problem with a certain type of transistor,my hyrarchy has a lot components an sub components and visually inspecting them is very hard.

is there a way like in other cadence layout viewer tools , to enter the name of the component or a NET somewhere and it will focus on it visualy or give the hyrarchy path to it?

Thanks.

Hello

The document I referenced is https://filebox.ece.vt.edu/~symort/rfworkshop/Mixer_workshop_instruction.pdf. (This is cadence workshop document)

While following the pxf simulation in the above article, the results are different and I have a question.

My result picture is shown below.

<my result error>

<document result>

<my direct plot>

<document direct plot>

The difference with the documentation is that in the direct plot screen after the pxf simulation,

1.output harmonics-> input sideband

2.Frequency axis: out-> frequency axis: absin

3.The results for port0 (RF port) are also different (see photo below).

4.The frequency values in the box are different.

My screen shows 5G, 10G, 1K ~ 10M, but the document is the same as 1K ~ 10M.

Ask for a solution. Thank you.

Hi, all

Recently, I meet the simulation error as the picture shows when I simulate my circuit with transient.  how can I solve this problem?

thank you~

Hello, i am trying to produce a gain circles on a simple transistor as shown bellow.

i have defined the range from 1 til 30 dB and i dont get any circle just dots in infinity?

Where did i go wrong?
Thanks.

Hello, i have built a matching network of 13dB gain and  NF as shown bellow step by step.(including all the plots and matlab )

its just not working at all,i am doing it exacly by the thoery

taking a point inside the circle-> converting its gamma to Z_source->converting gamma_s into gamma_L with the formulla bellow as shown in the matlab->converting the gamma_L into Z_L-> building the matching network for conjugate of Z_L and Z_c.Its just not working.

where did i got  wrong?

Thanks.

gamma_s=75.8966*exp(deg2rad(280.88)*i);
z_s=gamma2z(gamma_s,50);
s11=0.99875-0.03202*i
s12=721.33*10^(-6)+8.622*10^(-3)*i
s21=-188.37*10^(-3)+30.611*10^(-3)*i
s22=875.51*10^(-3)-100.72*10^(-3)*i
gamma_L=conj((s22+(s12*s21*gamma_s)/(1-s11*gamma_s)))
z_L=gamma2z(gamma_L,50)

Hello, There is a manual in matlab of matching LNA  shown in the link bellow.

In it as shown in the plot bellow they mention input and output circle plots.

Is there such option of input and output circle in cadence virtuoso?

https://www.mathworks.com/help/rf/examples/designing-matching-networks-part-1-networks-with-an-lna-and-lumped-elements.html

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?

Hello, i am a student who is studying Allegro tool with SKILL.

I have a question about SKILL axlSegDelayAndZ0. The reference says this function "returns the delay and impedance of a cline segment."

I want to know how many components does this tool consider when calculating timing delay from the length. 

How steep is input signal's rise transition? Is rise transition shape isosceles trapezoid or differential increasing shape?

Also, if it is a multi fan-out, the rise transition time will be different net by net. How can this tool can calculate in this case?

I want to hear answers about these questions.

Thank you for reading this long boring questions, and i will be waiting for answers.

Hi,

I wanted to find the location of a pin in the design using skill program. pin_dbids = axlDBGetDesign()->pins, this gives me all the dbids of the pins that are present in my design. But when im entering that dbid, pad = axlDBGetPad("000001EA8FD8B9F8" "package geometry/assembly_top" "regular") it is throwing an error stating "This dbid is not user defined. Please enter the user defined". So please provide me a snippet so that I can get the exact pin location in the design using skill script.

Hi guys,

eDave,

I need to call (replay) a skill to combine some skills to ONE UI for more convenience and using as more easier.

Please help me to find the command to execute this.(code for example as more good)

HT,

Hi 

I'm trying to find the location of the assembly line in the design automatically without using "Show Element". And also I want to find the end points of that line. The line exists in "Package Geometry/Assembly_Top" Layer. So is there any code snippet to find the location of assembly line?

This is the 17th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

One of my favourite English words comes from chess. If it is your turn to move, but any move you make makes your position worse, you are in ‘Zugzwang’. Narendra Modi was in zugzwang after the Pulwama attacks a few days ago—as any Indian prime minister in his place would have been.

An Indian PM, after an attack for which Pakistan is held responsible, has only unsavoury choices in front of him. He is pulled in two opposite directions. One, strategy dictates that he must not escalate. Two, politics dictates that he must.

Let’s unpack that. First, consider the strategic imperatives. Ever since both India and Pakistan became nuclear powers, a conventional war has become next to impossible because of the threat of a nuclear war. If India escalates beyond a point, Pakistan might bring their nuclear weapons into play. Even a limited nuclear war could cause millions of casualties and devastate our economy. Thus, no matter what the provocation, India needs to calibrate its response so that the Pakistan doesn’t take it all the way.

It’s impossible to predict what actions Pakistan might view as sufficient provocation, so India has tended to play it safe. Don’t capture territory, don’t attack military assets, don’t kill civilians. In other words, surgical strikes on alleged terrorist camps is the most we can do.

Given that Pakistan knows that it is irrational for India to react, and our leaders tend to be rational, they can ‘bleed us with a thousand cuts’, as their doctrine states, with impunity. Both in 2001, when our parliament was attacked and the BJP’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee was PM, and in 2008, when Mumbai was attacked and the Congress’s Manmohan Singh was PM, our leaders considered all the options on the table—but were forced to do nothing.

But is doing nothing an option in an election year?

Leave strategy aside and turn to politics. India has been attacked. Forty soldiers have been killed, and the nation is traumatised and baying for blood. It is now politically impossible to not retaliate—especially for a PM who has criticized his predecessor for being weak, and portrayed himself as a 56-inch-chested man of action.

I have no doubt that Modi is a rational man, and knows the possible consequences of escalation. But he also knows the possible consequences of not escalating—he could dilute his brand and lose the elections. Thus, he is forced to act. And after he acts, his Pakistan counterpart will face the same domestic pressure to retaliate, and will have to attack back. And so on till my home in Versova is swallowed up by a nuclear crater, right?

Well, not exactly. There is a way to resolve this paradox. India and Pakistan can both escalate, not via military actions, but via optics.

Modi and Imran Khan, who you’d expect to feel like the loneliest men on earth right now, can find sweet company in each other. Their incentives are aligned. Neither man wants this to turn into a full-fledged war. Both men want to appear macho in front of their domestic constituencies. Both men are masters at building narratives, and have a pliant media that will help them.

Thus, India can carry out a surgical strike and claim it destroyed a camp, killed terrorists, and forced Pakistan to return a braveheart prisoner of war. Pakistan can say India merely destroyed two trees plus a rock, and claim the high moral ground by returning the prisoner after giving him good masala tea. A benign military equilibrium is maintained, and both men come out looking like strong leaders: a win-win game for the PMs that avoids a lose-lose game for their nations. They can give themselves a high-five in private when they meet next, and Imran can whisper to Modi, “You’re a good spinner, bro.”

There is one problem here, though: what if the optics don’t work?

If Modi feels that his public is too sceptical and he needs to do more, he might feel forced to resort to actual military escalation. The fog of politics might obscure the possible consequences. If the resultant Indian military action causes serious damage, Pakistan will have to respond in kind. In the chain of events that then begins, with body bags piling up, neither man may be able to back down. They could end up as prisoners of circumstance—and so could we.

***

Also check out:

Why Modi Must Learn to Play the Game of Chicken With Pakistan—Amit Varma
The Two Pakistans—Episode 79 of The Seen and the Unseen
India in the Nuclear Age—Episode 80 of The Seen and the Unseen

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

This is the 20th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Amit Shah’s induction into the union cabinet is such an interesting moment. Even partisans who oppose the BJP, as I do, would admit that Shah is a political genius. Under his leadership, the BJP has become an electoral behemoth in the most complicated political landscape in the world. The big question that now arises is this: can Shah do for India what he did for the BJP?

This raises a perplexing question: in the last five years, as the BJP has flourished, India has languished. And yet, the leadership of both the party and the nation are more or less the same. Then why hasn’t the ability to manage the party translated to governing the country?

I would argue that there are two reasons for this. One, the skills required in those two tasks are different. Two, so are the incentives in play.

Let’s look at the skills first. Managing a party like the BJP is, in some ways, like managing a large multinational company. Shah is a master at top-down planning and micro-management. How he went about winning the 2014 elections, described in detail in Prashant Jha’s book How the BJP Wins, should be a Harvard Business School case study. The book describes how he fixed the BJP’s ground game in Uttar Pradesh, picking teams for 147,000 booths in Uttar Pradesh, monitoring them, and keeping them accountable.

Shah looked at the market segmentation in UP, and hit upon his now famous “60% formula”. He realised he could not deliver the votes of Muslims, Yadavs and Jatavs, who were 40% of the population. So he focussed on wooing the other 60%, including non-Yadav OBCs and non-Jatav Dalits. He carried out versions of these caste reconfigurations across states, and according to Jha, covered “over 5 lakh kilometres” between 2014 and 2017, consolidating market share in every state in this country. He nurtured “a pool of a thousand new OBC and Dalit leaders”, going well beyond the posturing of other parties.

That so many Dalits and OBCs voted for the BJP in 2019 is astonishing. Shah went past Mandal politics, managing to subsume previously antagonistic castes and sub-castes into a broad Hindutva identity. And as the BJP increased its depth, it expanded its breadth as well. What it has done in West Bengal, wiping out the Left and weakening Mamata Banerjee, is jaw-dropping. With hindsight, it may one day seem inevitable, but only a madman could have conceived it, and only a genius could have executed it.

Good man to be Home Minister then, eh? Not quite. A country is not like a large company or even a political party. It is much too complex to be managed from the top down, and a control freak is bound to flounder. The approach needed is very different.

Some tasks of governance, it is true, are tailor-made for efficient managers. Building infrastructure, taking care of roads and power, building toilets (even without an underlying drainage system) and PR campaigns can all be executed by good managers. But the deeper tasks of making an economy flourish require a different approach. They need a light touch, not a heavy hand.

The 20th century is full of cautionary tales that show that economies cannot be centrally planned from the top down. Examples of that ‘fatal conceit’, to use my hero Friedrich Hayek’s term, include the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and even the lady Modi most reminds me of, Indira Gandhi.

The task of the state, when it comes to the economy, is to administer a strong rule of law, and to make sure it is applied equally. No special favours to cronies or special interest groups. Just unleash the natural creativity of the people, and don’t try to micro-manage.

Sadly, the BJP’s impulse, like that of most governments of the past, is a statist one. India should have a small state that does a few things well. Instead, we have a large state that does many things badly, and acts as a parasite on its people.

As it happens, the few things that we should do well are all right up Shah’s managerial alley. For example, the rule of law is effectively absent in India today, especially for the poor. As Home Minister, Shah could fix this if he applied the same zeal to governing India as he did to growing the BJP. But will he?

And here we come to the question of incentives. What drives Amit Shah: maximising power, or serving the nation? What is good for the country will often coincide with what is good for the party – but not always. When they diverge, which path will Shah choose? So much rests on that.

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

I have a problem connected with my AXI4 coverage.

I enable coverage collection in AXI4 

      set_config_int("axi4_active_slave_agent_0.monitor.coverModel", "burst_started_enable", 1);
      set_config_int("axi4_active_slave_agent_0.monitor.coverModel", "coverageEnable", 1);

but i don't have a result.

I think the problem in Callback, but i try to connect all callback and i don't have positive result.

Can you help me?

Hello folks,

Greetings.

One of my customer claims that he is using Cadence IES version 18.09.011 with Vivado 2019.2. The version of IES that we officially support with Vivado 2019.2 is 15.20.073. Though the tool is forward compatible, I am not sure what are the versions of IES that are released after 15.20.073. Could you please give me a list of the versions of Cadence IES released after 15.20.073 and which is the latest version as of now ?

Best regards,

Chinmay

Molding caps aren’t something we talk about too frequently around here. We all know they exist, and they serve an important purpose of protecting the delicate die from potentially harsh environmental conditions. They impact how well heat can be...(read more)

Is there a setting for automatically naming nets from port names in a hierarchical design? That is, when creating a netlist for Allegro in Capture.

Is anyone else using Constraint Manager within Capture? This is my first time using it. I'm finding that it is occasionally changing some of my constraint values in Allegro. It seems random. 

Hi everyone! I'm working on a small battery powered PCB which will fit inside a small plastic "hockey puck" container. A number of these "pucks" will be sold together with a "charging doc" which will store and charge the pucks when not in use.

I'm trying to work out the best way to charge the battery. I'm thinking of having metal "pads" on the rr.com puck that pass through the puck's plastic shell and then make contact with the PCB on the inside, and having a similar system on the charging dock. I'm thinking of having SMD "contact sprints" mounted to the underside of the PCB and have these mate against metal pins that protrude through the puck, but it's the later of which I'm struggling to find. For a visual, think about "restaurant pagers" and how they charge.