This is the 21st installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

When all political parties agree on something, you know you might have a problem. Giriraj Singh, a minister in Narendra Modi’s new cabinet, tweeted this week that our population control law should become a “movement.” This is something that would find bipartisan support – we are taught from school onwards that India’s population is a big problem, and we need to control it.

This is wrong. Contrary to popular belief, our population is not a problem. It is our greatest strength.

The notion that we should worry about a growing population is an intuitive one. The world has limited resources. People keep increasing. Something’s gotta give.

Robert Malthus made just this point in his 1798 book, An Essay on the Principle of Population. He was worried that our population would grow exponentially while resources would grow arithmetically. As more people entered the workforce, wages would fall and goods would become scarce. Calamity was inevitable.

Malthus’s rationale was so influential that this mode of thinking was soon called ‘Malthusian.’ (It is a pejorative today.) A 20th-century follower of his, Harrison Brown, came up with one of my favourite images on this subject, arguing that a growing population would lead to the earth being “covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots.”

Another Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich, published a book called The Population Bomb in 1968, which began with the stirring lines, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Ehrlich was, as you’d guess, a big supporter of India’s coercive family planning programs. ““I don’t see,” he wrote, “how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980.”

None of these fears have come true. A 2007 study by Nicholas Eberstadt called ‘Too Many People?’ found no correlation between population density and poverty. The greater the density of people, the more you’d expect them to fight for resources – and yet, Monaco, which has 40 times the population density of Bangladesh, is doing well for itself. So is Bahrain, which has three times the population density of India.

Not only does population not cause poverty, it makes us more prosperous. The economist Julian Simon pointed out in a 1981 book that through history, whenever there has been a spurt in population, it has coincided with a spurt in productivity. Such as, for example, between Malthus’s time and now. There were around a billion people on earth in 1798, and there are around 7.7 billion today. As you read these words, consider that you are better off than the richest person on the planet then.

Why is this? The answer lies in the title of Simon’s book: The Ultimate Resource. When we speak of resources, we forget that human beings are the finest resource of all. There is no limit to our ingenuity. And we interact with each other in positive-sum ways – every voluntary interactions leaves both people better off, and the amount of value in the world goes up. This is why we want to be part of economic networks that are as large, and as dense, as possible. This is why most people migrate to cities rather than away from them – and why cities are so much richer than towns or villages.

If Malthusians were right, essential commodities like wheat, maize and rice would become relatively scarcer over time, and thus more expensive – but they have actually become much cheaper in real terms. This is thanks to the productivity and creativity of humans, who, in Eberstadt’s words, are “in practice always renewable and in theory entirely inexhaustible.”

The error made by Malthus, Brown and Ehrlich is the same error that our politicians make today, and not just in the context of population: zero-sum thinking. If our population grows and resources stays the same, of course there will be scarcity. But this is never the case. All we need to do to learn this lesson is look at our cities!

This mistaken thinking has had savage humanitarian consequences in India. Think of the unborn millions over the decades because of our brutal family planning policies. How many Tendulkars, Rahmans and Satyajit Rays have we lost? Think of the immoral coercion still carried out on poor people across the country. And finally, think of the condescension of our politicians, asserting that people are India’s problem – but always other people, never themselves.

This arrogance is India’s greatest problem, not our people.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

This is the 24th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Back in the last decade, I was a cricket journalist for a few years. Then, around 12 years ago, I quit. I was jaded as hell. Every game seemed like déjà vu, nothing new, just another round on the treadmill. Although I would remember her fondly, I thought me and cricket were done.

And then I fell in love again. Cricket has changed in the last few years in glorious ways. There have been new ways of thinking about the game. There have been new ways of playing the game. Every season, new kinds of drama form, new nuances spring up into sight. This is true even of what had once seemed the dullest form of the game, one-day cricket. We are entering into a brave new world, and the team leading us there is England. No matter what happens in the World Cup final today – a single game involves a huge amount of luck – this England side are extraordinary. They are the bridge between eras, leading us into a Golden Age of Cricket.

I know that sounds hyperbolic, so let me stun you further by saying that I give the IPL credit for this. And now, having woken up you up with such a jolt on this lovely Sunday morning, let me explain.

Twenty20 cricket changed the game in two fundamental ways. Both ended up changing one-day cricket. The first was strategy.

When the first T20 games took place, teams applied an ODI template to innings-building: pinch-hit, build, slog. But this was not an optimal approach. In ODIs, teams have 11 players over 50 overs. In T20s, they have 11 players over 20 overs. The equation between resources and constraints is different. This means that the cost of a wicket goes down, and the cost of a dot ball goes up. Critically, it means that the value of aggression rises. A team need not follow the ODI template. In some instances, attacking for all 20 overs – or as I call it, ‘frontloading’ – may be optimal.

West Indies won the T20 World Cup in 2016 by doing just this, and England played similarly. And some sides began to realise was that they had been underestimating the value of aggression in one-day cricket as well.

The second fundamental way in which T20 cricket changed cricket was in terms of skills. The IPL and other leagues brought big money into the game. This changed incentives for budding cricketers. Relatively few people break into Test or ODI cricket, and play for their countries. A much wider pool can aspire to play T20 cricket – which also provides much more money. So it makes sense to spend the hundreds of hours you are in the nets honing T20 skills rather than Test match skills. Go to any nets practice, and you will find many more kids practising innovative aggressive strokes than playing the forward defensive.

As a result, batsmen today have a wider array of attacking strokes than earlier generations. Because every run counts more in T20 cricket, the standard of fielding has also shot up. And bowlers have also reacted to this by expanding their arsenal of tricks. Everyone has had to lift their game.

In one-day cricket, thus, two things have happened. One, there is better strategic understanding about the value of aggression. Two, batsmen are better equipped to act on the aggressive imperative. The game has continued to evolve.

Bowlers have reacted to this with greater aggression on their part, and this ongoing dialogue has been fascinating. The cricket writer Gideon Haigh once told me on my podcast that the 2015 World Cup featured a battle between T20 batting and Test match bowling.

This England team is the high watermark so far. Their aggression does not come from slogging. They bat with a combination of intent and skills that allows them to coast at 6-an-over, without needing to take too many risks. In normal conditions, thus, they can coast to 300 – any hitting they do beyond that is the bonus that takes them to 350 or 400. It’s a whole new level, illustrated by the fact that at one point a few days ago, they had seven consecutive scores of 300 to their name. Look at their scores over the last few years, in fact, and it is clear that this is the greatest batting side in the history of one-day cricket – by a margin.

There have been stumbles in this World Cup, but in the bigger picture, those are outliers. If England have a bad day in the final and New Zealand play their A-game, England might even lose today. But if Captain Morgan’s men play their A-game, they will coast to victory. New Zealand does not have those gears. No other team in the world does – for now.

But one day, they will all have to learn to play like this.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

Physical synthesis has been around in various forms for many years. The basic idea is to bring some awareness of physical layout into synthesis. This week (June 3, 2015) Cadence is rolling out the Genus™ Synthesis Solution, a next-generation RTL synthesis tool that takes physical awareness in some new directions.

Here are four important things to know about Genus technology:

• A massively parallel architecture improves turnaround time by up to 5X while maintaining quality of results
• The Genus solution synthesizes up to 10M+ instances flat without impacting power, performance and area (PPA)
• The Genus solution provides tight correlation with the Innovus Implementation System, using the same placement and routing algorithms
• Globally focused PPA optimization saves up to 20% datapath area and power

Compared to previous-generation products such as the Cadence Encounter RTL Compiler Advanced Physical Option, the Genus solution approaches physical synthesis in a different way. The Encounter solution applied physical optimization “at the tail end of synthesis,” said David Stratman, senior principal product manager at Cadence. “We were doing a final incremental push, but we could only do so much, since we had locked in a lot of the earlier steps from a logical-only synthesis perspective.”

Genus Synthesis Solution supports the physical synthesis features in the previous Encounter solution, but it also brings the full physical scope upstream to RTL logic designers. “It’s going to enable the unit-level RTL designer to gain the benefits of physical synthesis without having to understand it,” Stratman said. As an example, users can apply generic (unmapped) placement at the earliest stages of synthesis, using a lightweight version of the Innovus placement engine. The bottom line: “Genus is a full solution where every step of synthesis can be done physically.”

Getting Massively Parallel

If you bring physical data into synthesis, you need a way to improve capacity and runtimes, especially with today’s gigantic advance-node SoCs. That’s why a massively parallel architecture is the cornerstone of the Genus solution. In this way, the Genus solution is following in the footsteps of the Innovus Implementation System, which also provides a massively parallel architecture.

Both the Innovus and Genus solutions can handle blocks of 10M instances flat. Given that SoCs today may have up to 100M instances, and often up to 50-100 top-level blocks, this is an important capability. Many tools today will only handle blocks of 1M instances. As a result, design teams often have to constrain block sizes.

Genus technology offers timing-driven, multi-level design partitioning across multiple threads and machines. It enables a near-linear runtime scaling without impacting PPA. According to Stratman, the Genus solution will scale well beyond 64 CPUs for a large design, with a “sweet spot” around 8-20 CPUs for today’s typical block sizes. Runs that used to take days, he noted, can now be done in hours.

As shown below, Genus technology leverages parallelism at three levels. The Genus solution can distribute design partitions to multiple threads or CPUs, and also supports local algorithm-level multithreading on each machine with shared memory. An adaptive scheduler ensures the best use of the available CPUs.

Fig. 1 – Genus Synthesis Solution provides three levels of parallelism

With its massive parallelism, Stratman said, Genus technology can obtain production-level quality of results (QoR) in runtimes typically seen in “prototype-level” synthesis runs. The “secret sauce,” he said, is in the partitioning. Cadence has found a way to generate partitions in a way that “slices the design more intelligently, and takes advantage of the Genus database to merge partitions without losing timing, power, or area,” Stratman said.

Playing in the Sandbox

In the Genus Synthesis Solution, a process called “sandboxing” allows any subset or partition of a design to be extracted along with full timing and a physical context. Optimization algorithms will treat a sandbox as a complete design.

The “Clipper” flow clips out or extracts the context of the larger SoC blocks. “It’s kind of a skeleton floorplan but it has all the timing information,” Stratman said. These extracted contexts include all the critical physical information to make the right RTL synthesis choices at the unit level. This information is used to streamline the handoffs between unit-level RTL designers, integration engineers, and implementation engineers. It’s a way for logic designers to gain some physical knowledge without having to be a physical synthesis expert, or without having to run a full top-level synthesis.

Fig. 2 – Clipper flow provides context for unit-level blocks

Correlation with Innovus Implementation System

Although Genus technology can work with third-party IC implementation systems, it shares algorithms and engines with Innovus Implementation System, as well as a common user interface. As shown below, both the Genus and Innovus solutions use a table-based Quantus QRC parasitic extraction, effective current source model (ECSM) and composite current source (CCS) delay calculations, and a unified global routing engine. Timing and wire length claim a 5% correlation.

Fig. 3 – Genus Synthesis Solution offers tight correlation with Innovus Implementation System

Genus technology doesn’t model everything to the same level of accuracy as the Innovus solution, however. “We chose to be lighter weight and more nimble to get expected runtimes,” Stratman said. A tight correlation is possible because the Genus and Innovus solutions use a similar code base. This correlation will be tighter than that between Encounter RTL Compiler Advanced Physical Option and the Encounter Digital Implementation System today.

Genus Synthesis Solution uses a new Hybrid Global Router that provides the ability to resolve congestion and construct layer-aware, timing-driven wire topologies. This accelerates analysis and debug, and reduces iterations. Users can avoid blockages and see a full Manhattan route as opposed to “flight lines.” Layer awareness is particularly important, given the large RC variations within the metal stack at advanced process nodes.

A version of the Innovus GigaPlace engine is available within the Genus solution. Here, users can do an RTL-level generic gate placement early in the synthesis flow (“generic gate” means there is no mapping into standard cell libraries, but there’s still an area estimate). This helps designers understand PPA tradeoffs earlier.

While users can go all the way to a design-rule “legal” placement with Genus Synthesis Solution, this isn’t generally recommended. “You can do a placement and use the same algorithms as GigaPlace and get a nice correlation without all the runtimes and additional steps of doing a fully legal placement,” Stratman said.

So where does Genus technology end and Innovus technology begin? That’s up to the user. You could use the Genus solution for logical synthesis and run all physical implementation in the Innovus system. If you run physical synthesis within the Genus solution, there’s more work earlier in the flow, but you get better insights into downstream problems and reduce iterations.

“Physical synthesis should be no more than 2X [runtime] of logic synthesis,” Stratman said. “All of the runtime that moves up should be shaved off of the place-and-route stages, because now you can do lightweight incremental optimization and incremental placement. The overall flow should be runtime neutral or better.”

Be Globally Aware

Finally, Genus Synthesis Solution offers a globally focused early PPA optimization across the whole datapath, delivering up to a 20% area reduction in the datapath. Stratman noted that this capability is a follow-on to an RCP feature called “globally focused mapping” that can determine the best cells to use in a library. What’s new with the Genus solution is that this concept has been applied at the arithmetic level.

For example, there are many ways to configure a multiplier – you may want to prioritize speed, power, or size. In the past, Stratman noted, synthesis tools have not been very good at globally optimizing the architecture selection for PPA optimization. “We can [now] find the most efficient global datapath implementation for a given region,” he said.

For further information about the Cadence Genus Synthesis Solution, including a datasheet and technical product brief, see this landing page.

Richard Goering

Related Blog Posts

Designer View – RTL Synthesis Success Strategies at 28nm and Below

Front-End Design Summit: The Future of RTL Synthesis and Design for Test

Physically-Aware Synthesis Helps Design a New Computer Architecture

EDA investor and former executive Jim Hogan is optimistic about automotive electronics, but he has some concerns as well. At the recent Design Automation Conference (DAC 2015), he delivered a speech titled “The Looming Quality, Reliability, and Safety Crisis in Automotive Electronics...Why is it and what can we do to avoid it?"

Hogan gave the keynote speech for IP Talks!, a series of over 30 half-hour presentations located at the ChipEstimate.com booth. Presenters included ARM, Cadence, eSilicon, Kilopass, Sidense, SilabTech, Sonics, Synopsys, True Circuits, and TSMC. Held in an informal setting, the talks addressed the challenges faced by SoC design teams and showed how the latest developments in semiconductor IP can contribute to design success.

Jim Hogan delivers keynote speech at DAC 2015 IP Talks!

Hogan talked about several phases of automotive electronics. These include assisted driving to avoid collisions, controlled automation of isolated tasks such as parallel parking, and, finally, fully autonomous vehicles, which Hogan expects to see in 15 to 20 years. The top immediate priorities for automotive electronics designers, he said, will be government regulation, fuel economy, advanced safety, and infotainment.

More Code than a Boeing 777

According to Hogan, today’s automobiles use 50-100 microcontrollers per car, resulting in a worldwide automotive semiconductor market of around $40 billion. The global market for advanced automotive electronics is expected to reach $240 billion by 2020. Software is growing faster in the automotive market than it is in smartphones. Hogan quoted a Ford vice president who observed that there are more lines of code in a Ford Fusion car than a Boeing 777 airplane.

One unique challenge for automotive electronics designers is long-term reliability. This is because a typical U.S. car stays on the road for 15 years, Hogan said. Americans are holding onto new vehicles for a record 71.4 months.

Another challenge is regulatory compliance. Aeronautics is highly regulated from manufacturing to air traffic control, and the same will probably be true of automated cars. Hogan speculated that the Department of Transportation will be the regulatory authority for autonomous cars. Today, automotive electronics providers must comply with the ISO26262 automotive functional safety specification.

So where do we go from here? “We’ve got to change our mindset,” Hogan said. “We’ve got to focus on safety and reliability and demand a different kind of engineering discipline.” You can watch Hogan’s entire presentation by clicking on the video icon below, or clicking here. You can also watch other IP Talks! videos from DAC 2015 here.

https://youtu.be/qL4kAEu-PNw

Richard Goering

Related Blog Posts

DAC 2015: See the Latest in Semiconductor IP at “IP Talks!”

Automotive Functional Safety Drives New Chapter in IC Verification

Hello, I am using Encounter 8.1. My mouse is working fine, but my keyboard is not working well in Encounter. I can type in some boxes, but in many boxes I cannot type. The binding key is also not responding. How do I fix this issue? Thanks.

Hi,

I was wondering if it is possible to save the coordinates of each stripe and row of the power grid 

and if it is possible to find out the effective resistance between two given points using Voltus

My goal is to built a resistance model of the power grid

Thanks

This are the Errors i am getting can you please provide the solution.

Checking out license: Genus_Synthesis (12 seconds elapsed).
License 'Genus_Synthesis' (main version: 17.2, alternate version: 17.2) checkout failed.
Checking out license: Virtuoso_Digital_Implem (12 seconds elapsed).
License 'Virtuoso_Digital_Implem' (main version: 17.1, alternate version: 17.1) checkout failed.
Checking out license: Virtuoso_Digital_Implem_XL (12 seconds elapsed).
License 'Virtuoso_Digital_Implem_XL' (main version: 17.1, alternate version: 17.1) checkout failed.
Cannot obtain 'Genus_Synthesis' license.
Abnormal exit.

I have been using Voltus to do IR drop analysis but I got caught on one signal. It is negative. When I use:

set_pg_nets -net negsupply -voltage -5 -threshold -4.5 -package_net_name NEGSUP -force

Voltus dies with a backtrace. Looking at the beginning of the trace you see it suggests that the problem is it set maximum to -5 and minimum to 0. Is there another way to express a negative voltage supply for IR drop analysis?

According to the book Electronic Design Automation For Integrated Circuits Handbook there are mutiple algorithms available. Quote from book: "One of the first complete ATPG algorithms is the D-algorithm [9]. Subsequently, other algorithms were proposed, including PODEM [14], FAN [15], and SOCRATES [10]."

I was wondering which algorithms are used in Cadence Modus.

When I enable clock gating in my synthesis flow (using Genus 18.15), my simulation (using Xcelium) on the post-synthesis netlist fails. The simulation succeeds pre-synthesis and also if I remove clock-gating in the design. I use set_db  lp_insert_clock_gating true to enable clock gating during synthesis. I printed out some of the signals from the netlist and can see where it fails (it incorrectly writes a register). However, I am not sure how to solve this issue or what I should be looking for. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

As title,

How to dump waveform, fsdb in SimVision? 
(Simulation Analysis Environment  SimVision(64) 18.09-s001)
Please help.

Thanks.

Unable to open Source Browser. It goes into an infinite loop of loading, with the hour glass displayed and message "loading snapshot".

The deisgn was compilied with "15.20.s028" and that is the same version of simvision I am using to open the code.

The waveform viewer is uo and so is the Design Browser. I can take signals from Design Broweser and view the waveform viewer,

but the source brower hangs.

What should I be looking at to resolve this situation. Many of us at the company are sufferring from it. Colossal waste of time.

. 

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.

Happy New Year! Have you tried the new Transmission Line Library (rfTlineLib) yet? In case you missed it, rfTlineLib was introduced in IC 6.1.6 ISR1 plus MMSIM 12.1.1 -or- MMSIM13.1. You may wonder....Why should I use the new rfTlineLib ? Well...(read more)

Last year, I wrote a blog post entitled Modeling Oscillators with Arbitrary Phase Noise Profiles . We now have an easier way to do this. Starting in MMSIM 13.1 , you can specify the phase noise as an instance parameter in Spectre sources, including...(read more)

Hi Folks, Check out this great new video on YouTube: CDNLive SV 2014: PMC Improves Visibility and Performance with Spectre APS In this video from CDNLive Silicon Valley 2014, Jurgen Hissen, principal engineer, MSCAD, at PMC, discusses an aggressive...(read more)

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)

The Triple Beat analysis is similar to Rapid IP2/IP3 analysis except that it uses three tones instead of two. It is used in cases where two closely-spaced small-signal inputs from a transmitter leak in to the receiver along with an intended small-signal RF input signal. (read more)

The other day, I happened to sneak out some time for myself after having sent the kids to play in the neighborhood park. I made myself a hot cup of coffee and settled on the couch hoping to enjoy the silence in the house. But was it really ...(read more)

I have a technology library (given by foundry) with leLsw layer section defined.
I do not want to touch it

I added few layers with an ITDB approach. Now I'm unable to see the added layers, as it is not present in the leLsw layer section of the main techlib.

I want the user of the new techlib to see all the layers by default.(I don't want the users to go to the properties of palette and switch the display option to techfile layers instead of leLsw)

Hello,

I have created an appForm with  the following attachmentList and size:

?attachmentList list(hicLeftPositionSet | hicRightPositionSet ; field 1
                     hicLeftPositionSet | hicRightPositionSet ; field 2
etc.

?initialSize    800:800
?minSize        800:800
?maxSize       1600:800

If I reduce the minimum y-size (?minSize        800:200), scrollbars are not inserted, unless I remove the attachmentList constraints.

Is it possible to have both scrollbars and "hicLeftPositionSet | hicRightPositionSet"? 

Thank you,

Best regards,

Aldo

I have a modeless informational dialog box defined at the beginning of a SKILL script, but its contents don't display until the script finishes.

How do you get a modeless dialog box contents to display while a SKILL script is running?

procedure(myproc()

   prog((myvars)

     hiDisplayAppDBox()    ; opens blank dialog box - no dboxText contents show until script completes!

     ....rest of SKILL code in script...launches child processes

   );prog

);proc

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

Hi,

I am trying add multiple choices to my radio field in cdf parameters. when i see the select the instance and try editing the Instance properties I can not view them in a single window. Instead i get a vertical sliding bar. Is there a way to display them in multiple rows?

-Haareeth

Hi there,

I'm running a transient simulation, and I want to get all instances with model implementation hisim_hv because after that I want to process the data and to adjust some parameters for this kind of devices before dumping the values.

What is the easiest/fastest way to get those instances in skill/ocean?

What I did until now: 

- save the final OP of the simulation and then in skill

openResults()
selectResults('tranOp)
report(?type "hisim_hv" ?param "vgs")

Output seems to be promising, and looks like I can redirect it to a file and after that I have to parse the file.

Is there other simple way? I mean to not save data to file and to parse it.

Eventually having an instance name, is it possible to get the model implementation (hsim_hv, bsim4, etc..)? 

Best Regards,

Marcel

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)

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)

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)

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.      

Hi, I want to add values to components in my SiP design such as 1nF or 15nH. There is already in existence a COMP_VALUE property reserved for this as shown during BOM generation. This property is not visible under the Edit/Properties dialog for component or symbol find filters. We have already created user properties called COMP_MFG and COMP_MFG_PN that it editable at a component level. When we try to add COMP_VALUE it is reported as a reserved name in Cadence but this name is not listed in the properties dialog. Is there a way to turn on the visibility and editablility of this or other hidden reserved Cadence property names? How can I assign a string value to the COMP_VALUE property?

Thanks

Have you ever manufactured a printed circuit board (PCB) without analyzing all the routed signal traces? Most designers will say “yes, all the time.” Trace widths and spacing are set by constraints,...

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

Did you know that there is a park in San Jose named after a disk drive? Actually, technically it is named after the first computer that used disk drives. You couldn't just go and buy a disk drive...

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

In this week’s Whiteboard Wednesdays video, Dave Apte discusses how to create the lowest power design possible by using architectural exploration and Cadence’s Stratus HLS solution....

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

Emulators are great. They vastly speed up verification to the point where it’s hard to imagine life without them; as designs grow in complexity, simple simulation can’t keep up for the biggest designs. The extra oomph from emulation is almost a necessity for the top percentages of design sizes. However, many users of Palladium aren’t efficiently using their unit’s processing power, and as a result they’re missing out on the full speed-up potential that Palladium can provide.

Altair’s HERO is here for you. With its help, your Palladium unit can be even more amazing for your productivity than before.

HERO (that’s Hardware Emulator Resource Optimizer) adds emulator support to Altair’s Accelerator. You already know and love Altair’s scheduling tools; so why not make them do more for you, so you can be one of those people who are making the most out of their Palladium system?

Emulators are kind of like big computers, but it’s a lot harder to manage leftover resources on an emulator than it is on, say, a CPU. A scheduler like HERO neatly sidesteps this problem by more intelligently using the resources available to ensure that there’s a minimal patchwork of leftover resources to begin with.

HERO supports past generations of Palladium as well, so if you’re still using an older version, you can still take advantage of the upgrades HERO provides. There’s a wide variety of features HERO has that make your emulator easier to use. HERO separates a job into a “select” section and a “run” section: the “select” part makes a last-minute decision on which domains or boards to use, while the “run” part is the actual job. This makes it easier to ensure that your Palladium emulator is being used as efficiently as possible. Jobs are placed using “shapes”, which are a set of job types; these can be selected from a list of pre-defined ones by the user. Shapes can have special constraints if those are needed.

A new reservation system also helps HERO organize Palladium’s processing power better. HERO offers both “hard” reservations and “soft” reservations. A hard reservation locks other users out of reserving any part of the emulator at all, while a soft reservation allows a user to reserve a part of the emulator for a later use. Think of it like this: a soft reservation is like grabbing a ticket from the deli counter, while a hard reservation stops you from ever entering the market.

When using HERO, you can manage your entire verification workload. You’ll find that your utilization of your emulator vastly increases—it’s been reported that some users using only 30% of the capabilities of their Palladium unit(s) saw a massive increase to over 90% once they made the switch to HERO.

If you’re ready to take your Palladium productivity to the next level, Altair has a HERO for you.

To see the full presentation given by Andrea Casotto in the Cadence Theater at DAC 2019, check here.

Looking to learn? There's a bunch of new RAKs (Rapid Adoption Kits) available online now!

1) Indago 19.09 Better Driver Tracing and More

Are you new to Indago and not sure where to start? Luckily, there’s a new Rapid Adoption Kit for you: the Indago 19.09 Overview RAK! This neat package contains everything you need to get your debugging started through Indago. In four short labs, plus a brief introductory lab, you’ll have all the basics of Indago 19.09 down—the Indago working environment, the SmartLog, how Indago interacts with the rest of the Cadence Verification Suite, and how Indago uses HDL driver tracing.

Lab 1 discusses the various debugging tools included in Indago and teaches you how to customize your Indago windows and environment settings. Lab 2 covers the SmartLog feature and talks about analyzing and filtering its messages to suit your needs, as well as how to interact with the waveform marker. Lab 3 is an interactive Indago debugging experience—it’ll walk you through how to use Indago and its features in an actual working environment: setting breakpoints, using simulator commands in the Indago console, toolbars, switches, and more. Lab 4 is all things HDL tracing—recording debug data, an introduction to debug assertions, waveform visualizations, driving expression analysis, and single-step driver tracing, among other things.

Interested? Check out the RAK here.

2) IXCOM MSIE: Faster Palladium Build Time

Got several testbenches you want to compile with the same DUT and tests and you want to do it fast? With IXCOM, all you have to do to compile those different testbenches is use the xrun command for each after compiling your DUT. But what exactly is IXCOM, and how does one start using it? This quick RAK can help—here, you’ll learn the basics of using MSIE features with IXCOM, complete with an example to get you started. Using MSIE can vastly improve your build times with Palladium and using IXCOM is the best way to shrink that tedious rebuild time as small as it can get. Check out this RAK here.

3)  JasperGold Control and Status Register Verification App Automates UVM Register Map Verification

New to the JasperGold Control and Status Register (CSR) Verification App for your UVM testbenches? Don’t worry; there’s a RAK for that! This eponymous RAK can get you up and running with this in no time, helping you automate your checks from UVM register map specs. With this RAK, you’ll learn the basics of the JasperGold CSR, how to use JasperGold CSR’s Proof Accelerator, and more. CSR features a model-based approach to predicting a register’s expected value, supports pipeline interfaces, all IP-XACT access policies, and it can fully model any expected register value. It also supports register aliases, read and write semantics, and separate read/write data latencies in any given field.

If this functionality sounds up your alley, you can take a look at this RAK here.

All PCB designers know the importance of proper power delivery for successful board design. Integrated circuits need the power to turn on, and ICs with marginal power delivery will not operate reliably. Since power planes can...(read more)

Have you ever manufactured a printed circuit board (PCB) without analyzing all the routed signal traces? Most designers will say “yes, all the time.” Trace widths and spacing are set by constraints, and many designers simply don’t h...(read more)

I noticed some very interesting news last week, widely reported in the technical press, and you can find the source press release here. In a nutshell, the Embedded Microprocessor Benchmark Consortium (EEMBC) has formed a group to look at benchmarks for ultra low power microcontrollers. Initially chaired by Horst Diewald, chief architect of MSP430^TM microcontrollers at Texas Instruments, the group's line-up is an impressive "who's who" of the microcontroller space, including Analog Devices, ARM, Atmel, Cypress, Energy Micro, Freescale, Fujitsu, Microchip, Renesas, Silicon Labs, STMicro, and TI.

As the press release explains, unlike usual processor benchmark suites which focus on performance, the ULP benchmark will focus on measuring the energy consumed by microcontrollers running various computational workloads over an extended time period. The benchmarking methodology will allow the microcontrollers to enter into their idle or sleep modes during the majority of time when they are not executing code, thereby simulating a real-world environment where products must support battery life measured in months, years, and even decades.

Processor performance benchmarks seem to be as widely criticized as EPA fuel consumption figures for cars - and the criticism is somewhat related. There is a suspicion that manufacturers can tune the performance for better test results, rather than better real-world performance. On the face of it, the task to produce meaningful ultra low power benchmarks seems even more fraught with difficulties. For a start, there is a vast range of possible energy profiles - different ways that computing is spread over time - and a plethora of low power design techniques available to optimize the system for the set of profiles that particular embedded system is likely to experience. Furthermore, you could argue that, compared with performance in a computer system, energy consumption in an ultra low power embedded system has less to do with the controller itself and more to do with other parts of the system like the memories and mixed-signal real-world interfaces.

EEMBC cites that common methods to gauge energy efficiency are lacking in growth applications such as portable medical devices, security systems, building automation, smart metering, and also applications using energy harvesting devices. At Cadence, we are seeing huge growth in these areas which, along with intelligence being introduced into all kinds of previously "dumb" appliances, is becoming known as the "Internet of Things." Despite the difficulties, with which the parties involved are all deeply familiar, I applaud this initiative. While it may be difficult to get to apples-to-apples comparisons for energy consumption in these applications, most of the time today we don't even know where the grocery store is. If the EEMBC effort at least gets us to the produce department, we're going to be better off.

Pete Hardee 

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.  :-) )

ST Microelectronics reported their success with IEEE 1801 / UPF low-power simulation using Incisive Enterprise Simulator at CDNLive India in November 2013. We were able to meet with Mohit Jain just after his presentation and recorded this video that explains the key points in his paper.

With eight years of experience and pioneering technology in native low-power simulation, Mohit was able to apply Incisive Enterprise Simulator to a low-power demonstrator in preparation for use with a production set-top box chip.  Mohit was impressed with the ease in which he was able to reuse his existing IEEE 1801 / UPF code successfully, including the power format files and the macro models coded in his Liberty files. Mohit also discusses how he used the power-aware Cadence SimVision debugger.

The Cadence low-power verification solution for IEEE 1801 / UPF also incorporates the patent-pending Power Supply Network visualization in the SimVision debugger.  You can learn more about that in the Incisive low-power verification Rapid Adoption Kit for IEEE 1801 / UPF here in Cadence Online Support.

Just another happy Cadence low-power verification user!

Regards,

 Adam "The Jouler" Sherer 

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

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, I looking for reaching minimal NOISE FIRUGE by peaking a combination of the RLC on the output load as shown bellow.
I tried to do it with PNOISE  but it gives me an error on the |f(in)| i am not sure regarding the sidebands in my case(its not a mixer)

How can i show Noise Figure and optimize it using my output RLC?

Thanks

Hi,

i am designing a broadband (100 MHz -6 GHz BW) receiver chain for  radar/rcs measurement tester. i will put Low noise amplifier after antenna input followed by mixed(10 MHz IF BW and digitizer.

I am facing problem regarding LAN. bandwidth of LAN is  approx 6 GHz(100 MHz-6GHz), gain 25-35 dB, with NF less than 2. I am uncertain about noise floor at the output of LNA.  I dont know exact SNR at the input of LNA but it shall be good.System operation will be on stepped CW waveform so receiver input signal will sweep over the BW and some step size.

so LNA output r noise floor will be? i assume, we can neglect thr role of input noise because it will be lesser than internal noise of LNA.

will it be LNA internal noise (Thermal noise due to BW) only ?

will it be LNA internal noise (Thermal noise due to BW)  + LAN Gain ? -78+25 =-53 dB? internal noise shall be lesser because NF is less than 3 . 

i have practically observed that that output noise floor is much lesser then even thermal noise( over LNA BW). i have gone through some tutorial where  formula says( internal noise+input noise)+gain. in  my case input noise shall be much less than theoretical internal noise. 

Thanks

Hi, when I applied a voltage divider implemented by two 100-ohm resistors to a 2Vpp 5GHz vsin source, the phase noise simulation using pnoise/fullspectrum with different types, jitter and source have different results. The simulated output noise results are 165.76aV2/Hz for pmjitter case, and 828.79zV2/Hz for source case. The source case result equals to the output noise calculation.

For my application, the output will be applied to driven circuits and thus pm jitter is concerned. As the pmjitter is based on the noise sampling at the threshold crossings, I was wondering how spectre gets the pmjitter resullts since sampling white noise with infinite bandwidth is impossible to my knowledge?

Interestingly, the Jee result by integration from 10kHz to 2.5GHz is ~41fs and is closed to Jee,rms from the transient noise simulation. I am also not sure how these results come and match each other. If applying the voltage divider output to drive next stages, I was wondering to what extent I can trust the input jitter from these simulations? Thank you.

Hi,

i'm using spectre HB simulation on PA (Power Amplifier) test_bench to perform large signal analysis (i want to plot Output power vs intput power, PAE and Gain)

Although the simulation returns no error, i still can't plot anything. seem like there is an issue with the ports i'm using. (analoglib ports)

i attach an image of my configuration so maybe you can find something helpful in it. 

thank you all for your help

best regards

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

For a project, we depend on capturing warnings. This works fine in Virtuoso but behaves differently in Allegro.

In our observations

Virtuoso:

>>> warn("Hello")

*WARNING* Hello

Allegro:

>>> warn("Hello")

*WARNING* Hello

But when we capture the warning:

Virtuoso:

>>> warn("Hello") getWarn()

"Hello"

Allegro:

>>> warn("Hello") getWarn()

"*WARNING* Hello"

This is a Problem for because we put an empty String in the warn and depend on the fact that no Warning results in an empty String but on Allegro the output always begins with *WARNING*

Is there a way to make the behavior consistent in both versions?

This is the 15th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

It’s election season, and promises are raining down on voters like rose petals on naïve newlyweds. Earlier this week, the Congress party announced a minimum income guarantee for the poor. This Friday, the Modi government released a budget full of sops. As the days go by, the promises will get bolder, and you might feel important that so much attention is being given to you. Well, the joke is on you.

Every election, HL Mencken once said, is “an advance auction sale of stolen goods.” A bunch of competing mafias fight to rule over you for the next five years. You decide who wins, on the basis of who can bribe you better with your own money. This is an absurd situation, which I tried to express in a limerick I wrote for this page a couple of years ago:

POLITICS: A neta who loves currency notes/ Told me what his line of work denotes./ ‘It is kind of funny./ We steal people’s money/And use some of it to buy their votes.’

We’re the dupes here, and we pay far more to keep this circus going than this circus costs. It would be okay if the parties, once they came to power, provided good governance. But voters have given up on that, and now only want patronage and handouts. That leads to one of the biggest problems in Indian politics: We are stuck in an equilibrium where all good politics is bad economics, and vice versa.

For example, the minimum guarantee for the poor is good politics, because the optics are great. It’s basically Garibi Hatao: that slogan made Indira Gandhi a political juggernaut in the 1970s, at the same time that she unleashed a series of economic policies that kept millions of people in garibi for decades longer than they should have been.

This time, the Congress has released no details, and keeping it vague makes sense because I find it hard to see how it can make economic sense. Depending on how they define ‘poor’, how much income they offer and what the cost is, the plan will either be ineffective or unworkable.

The Modi government’s interim budget announced a handout for poor farmers that seemed rather pointless. Given our agricultural distress, offering a poor farmer 500 bucks a month seems almost like mockery.

Such condescending handouts solve nothing. The poor want jobs and opportunities. Those come with growth, which requires structural reforms. Structural reforms don’t sound sexy as election promises. Handouts do.

A classic example is farm loan waivers. We have reached a stage in our politics where every party has to promise them to assuage farmers, who are a strong vote bank everywhere. You can’t blame farmers for wanting them – they are a necessary anaesthetic. But no government has yet made a serious attempt at tackling the root causes of our agricultural crisis.

Why is it that Good Politics in India is always Bad Economics? Let me put forth some possible reasons. One, voters tend to think in zero-sum ways, as if the pie is fixed, and the only way to bring people out of poverty is to redistribute. The truth is that trade is a positive-sum game, and nations can only be lifted out of poverty when the whole pie grows. But this is unintuitive.

Two, Indian politics revolves around identity and patronage. The spoils of power are limited – that is indeed a zero-sum game – so you’re likely to vote for whoever can look after the interests of your in-group rather than care about the economy as a whole.

Three, voters tend to stay uninformed for good reasons, because of what Public Choice economists call Rational Ignorance. A single vote is unlikely to make a difference in an election, so why put in the effort to understand the nuances of economics and governance? Just ask, what is in it for me, and go with whatever seems to be the best answer.

Four, Politicians have a short-term horizon, geared towards winning the next election. A good policy that may take years to play out is unattractive. A policy that will win them votes in the short term is preferable.

Sadly, no Indian party has shown a willingness to aim for the long term. The Congress has produced new Gandhis, but not new ideas. And while the BJP did make some solid promises in 2014, they did not walk that talk, and have proved to be, as Arun Shourie once called them, UPA + Cow. Even the Congress is adopting the cow, in fact, so maybe the BJP will add Temple to that mix?

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” This election season, my friends, the people of India are on the menu. You have been deveined and deboned, marinated with rhetoric, seasoned with narrative – now enter the oven and vote.

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

This is the 16th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Steven Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now, relates an old Russian joke about two peasants named Boris and Igor. They are both poor. Boris has a goat. Igor does not. One day, Igor is granted a wish by a visiting fairy. What will he wish for?

“I wish,” he says, “that Boris’s goat should die.”

The joke ends there, revealing as much about human nature as about economics. Consider the three things that happen if the fairy grants the wish. One, Boris becomes poorer. Two, Igor stays poor. Three, inequality reduces. Is any of them a good outcome?

I feel exasperated when I hear intellectuals and columnists talking about economic inequality. It is my contention that India’s problem is poverty – and that poverty and inequality are two very different things that often do not coincide.

To illustrate this, I sometimes ask this question: In which of the following countries would you rather be poor: USA or Bangladesh? The obvious answer is USA, where the poor are much better off than the poor of Bangladesh. And yet, while Bangladesh has greater poverty, the USA has higher inequality.

Indeed, take a look at the countries of the world measured by the Gini Index, which is that standard metric used to measure inequality, and you will find that USA, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United Kingdom all have greater inequality than Bangladesh, Liberia, Pakistan and Sierra Leone, which are much poorer. And yet, while the poor of Bangladesh would love to migrate to unequal USA, I don’t hear of too many people wishing to go in the opposite direction.

Indeed, people vote with their feet when it comes to choosing between poverty and inequality. All of human history is a story of migration from rural areas to cities – which have greater inequality.

If poverty and inequality are so different, why do people conflate the two? A key reason is that we tend to think of the world in zero-sum ways. For someone to win, someone else must lose. If the rich get richer, the poor must be getting poorer, and the presence of poverty must be proof of inequality.

But that’s not how the world works. The pie is not fixed. Economic growth is a positive-sum game and leads to an expansion of the pie, and everybody benefits. In absolute terms, the rich get richer, and so do the poor, often enough to come out of poverty. And so, in any growing economy, as poverty reduces, inequality tends to increase. (This is counter-intuitive, I know, so used are we to zero-sum thinking.) This is exactly what has happened in India since we liberalised parts of our economy in 1991.

Most people who complain about inequality in India are using the wrong word, and are really worried about poverty. Put a millionaire in a room with a billionaire, and no one will complain about the inequality in that room. But put a starving beggar in there, and the situation is morally objectionable. It is the poverty that makes it a problem, not the inequality.

You might think that this is just semantics, but words matter. Poverty and inequality are different phenomena with opposite solutions. You can solve for inequality by making everyone equally poor. Or you could solve for it by redistributing from the rich to the poor, as if the pie was fixed. The problem with this, as any economist will tell you, is that there is a trade-off between redistribution and growth. All redistribution comes at the cost of growing the pie – and only growth can solve the problem of poverty in a country like ours.

It has been estimated that in India, for every one percent rise in GDP, two million people come out of poverty. That is a stunning statistic. When millions of Indians don’t have enough money to eat properly or sleep with a roof over their heads, it is our moral imperative to help them rise out of poverty. The policies that will make this possible – allowing free markets, incentivising investment and job creation, removing state oppression – are likely to lead to greater inequality. So what? It is more urgent to make sure that every Indian has enough to fulfil his basic needs – what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, in his fine book On Inequality, called the Doctrine of Sufficiency.

The elite in their airconditioned drawing rooms, and those who live in rich countries, can follow the fashions of the West and talk compassionately about inequality. India does not have that luxury.

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