Cadence ® Spectre ® AMS Designer is a high-performance mixed-signal simulation system. The ability to use multiple engines, and drive from a variety of platforms enables you to "rev...

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

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

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

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

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

Cadence has a new white paper out on Computational Software . I've written on these topics in Breakfast Bytes, most recently in the posts: Computational Software System Analysis: Computational...

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

Everyone keeps talking about “the cloud” this and “the cloud” that these days—but you’re a semiconductor designer. Everyone keeps saying “the cloud” is revolutionizing all aspects of electronics design—but what does it mean for you? Cadence's own Tom Hackett discussed this in a presentation at the Cadence Theater during DAC 2019.

What people refer to as “the cloud” is commonly divided into three categories: Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and software as a Service (SaaS). With IaaS, you bring your own software—i.e. loading your owned or appropriately licensed tools onto cloud hardware that you rent by the minute. This service is available from providers like Google Cloud Platform, Amazon Web Service, and Microsoft Azure. In PaaS (also available from the major cloud providers), you create your own offering using capabilities and a software design environment provided by the cloud vendor that makes subsequent scaling and distribution really easy because the service was “born in the cloud”.  Lastly, there’s SaaS, where the cloud is used to access and manage functionality and data without requiring users to set up or manage any of the underlying infrastructure used to provide it.  SaaS companies like Workday and Salesforce deliver their value in this manner.  The Cadence Cloud portfolio makes use of both IaaS and SaaS, depending on the customers’ interest.  Cadence doesn’t have PaaS offerings because our customers don’t create their own EDA software from building blocks that Cadence provides.

All of these designations are great, but you’re a semiconductor designer. Presumably you use Workday or some similar software, or have in the past when you were an intern, but what about all of your tools? Those aren’t on the cloud.

Wait—actually, they are.

Using EDA tools in the cloud allows you to address complexity and data explosion issues you would have to simply struggle through before. Since you don’t have to worry about having the compute-power on-site, you can use way more power than you could before. You may be wary about this new generation of cloud-based tools, but don’t worry: the old rules of cloud computing no longer apply. Cloud capacity is far larger than it used to be, and it’s more secure. Updates to scheduling software means that resource competition isn’t as big of a deal anymore. Clouds today have nearly unlimited capacity—they’re so large that you don’t ever need to worry about running out of space.

The vast increase in raw compute available to designers through the cloud makes something like automotive functional safety verification, previously an extremely long verification task, doable in a reasonable time frame. With the cloud, it’s easy to scale the amount of compute you’re using to fit your task—whether it’s an automotive functional safety-related design or a small one.

Nowadays, the Cadence Cloud Portfolio brings you the best and brightest in cloud technology. No matter what your use case is, the Cadence Cloud Portfolio has a solution that works for you. You can even access the Palladium Cloud, allowing you to try out the benefits of an accelerator without having to buy one.

Cloud computing is the future of EDA. See the future here.

Autonomous vehicles are coming. In a statistic from the U.S. Department of Transportation, about 37,000 people died in car accidents in the United States in 2018. Having safe, fully automatic vehicles could drastically reduce that number—but the trick is figuring out how to make an autonomous vehicle safe. Internet-enabled systems in cars are more common than ever, and it’s unlikely that the use of them will slow or stop—and while they provide many conveniences to a driver, they also represent another attack surface that a potential criminal could use to disable a vehicle while driving.

So—what’s being done to combat this? Green Hills Software is on the case, and they explained the landscape of security in automotive systems in a presentation given by Max Hinson in the Cadence Theater at DAC 2019. They have software embedded [FS1] in most parts of a car, and all the major OEMs use their tech. The challenge they’ve taken on is far from a simple one—between the sheer complexity of modern automotive computer systems, safety requirements like the ISO 26262 standard, and the cost to develop and deploy software, they’ve got their work cut out for them. It’s the complexity of the systems that represents the biggest challenge, though. The autonomous cars of the future have dynamic behaviors, cognitive networks, require security certification to at least ASIL-D, require cyber security like you’d have on an important regular computer system to cover for the internet-enabled systems—and all of this comes with a caveat: under current verification abilities, it’s not possible to test every test case for the autonomous system. You’d be looking at trillions of test cases to reach full coverage—not even the strongest emulation units can cover that today.

With regular cars, you could do testing with crash-test dummies, and ramming the car into walls at high speeds in a lab and studying the results. Today, though, that won’t cut it. Testing like that doesn’t see if a car has side-channel vulnerabilities in its infotainment system, or if it can tell the difference between a stop sign and a yield sign. While driving might seem simple enough to those of us that have been doing it for a long time, to a computer, the sheer number of variables is astounding. A regular person can easily filter what’s important and what’s not, but a machine learning system would have to learn all of that from scratch. Green Hills Software posits that it would take nine billion miles of driving for a machine learning system of today’s caliber to reach an average driver’s level—and for an autonomous car, “average” isn’t good enough. It has to be perfect.

A certifier for autonomous vehicles has a herculean task, then. And if that doesn’t sound hard enough, consider this: in modern machine-vision systems, something called the “single pixel hack” can be exploited to mess them up. Let’s say you have a stop sign, and a system designed to recognize that object as a stop sign. Randomly, you change one pixel of the image to a different color, and then check to see if the system still recognizes the stop sign. To a human, who knows that a stop sign is octagonal, red, and has “STOP” written in white block letters, a stop sign that’s half blue and maybe bent a bit out of shape is still, obviously, a stop sign—plus, we can use context clues to ascertain that sign at an intersection where there’s a white line on the pavement in front of our vehicle probably means we should stop. We can do this because we can process the factors that identify a stop sign “softly”—it’s okay if it’s not quite right; we know what it’s supposed to be. Having a computer do the same is much more difficult. What if the stop sign has graffiti on it? Will the system still recognize it as a stop sign? How big of an aberration needs to be present before the system no longer acknowledges the mostly-red, mostly-octagonal object that might at one point have had “stop” written on it as a stop sign? To us, a stop sign is a stop sign, even with one pixel changed—but change it in the right spot, and the computer might disagree.

The National Institute of Security and Technology tracks vulnerabilities along those lines in all sorts of systems; by their database, a major vulnerability is found in Linux every three days. And despite all our efforts to promote security, this isn’t a battle we’re winning right now—the number of vulnerabilities is increasing all the time.

Check back next time to see the other side: what does Green Hills Software propose we do about these problems? Read part 2 now.

If you missed the first part of this series, you can find it here.

So: what does Green Hills Software propose we do?

The issue of “solving security” is, at its core, impossible—security can never be 100% assured. What we can do is make it as difficult as possible for security holes to develop. This can be done in a couple ways; one is to make small code in small packs executed by a “safing plan”—having each individual component be easier to verify goes a long way toward ensuring the security of the system. Don’t have sensors connect directly to objects—instead have them output to the safing plan first, which can establish control and ensure that nothing can be used incorrectly or in unintended ways. Make sure individual software components are sufficiently isolated to minimize the chances of a side-channel attack being viable.

What all of these practices mean, however, is that a system needs to be architected with security in mind from the very beginning. Managers need to emphasize and reward secure development right from the planning stages, or the comprehensive approach required to ensure that a system is as secure as it can be won’t come together. When something in someone else’s software breaks, pay attention—mistakes are costly, but only one person has to make it before others can learn from it and ensure it doesn’t happen again. Experts are experts for a reason—when an independent expert tells you something in your design is not secure, don’t brush them off because the fix is expensive. This is what Green Hills Software does, and it’s how they ensure that their software is secure.

Now, where does Cadence fit into all of this? Cadence has a number of certified secure offerings a user can take advantage of when planning their new designs. The Tensilica portfolio of IP is a great way to ensure basic components of your design are foolproof. As always, the Cadence Verification Suite is great for security verification in both simulation and emulation, and JasperGold platform’s formal apps are a part of that suite as well.

We are entering a new age of autonomous technology, and with that new age we have to update our security measures to match. It’s not good enough to “patch up” security at the end—security needs to beat the forefront of a verification engineer or hardware designer’s mind at all stages of development. For a lot of applications, quite literally, lives are at stake. It’s uncharted territory out there, but with Green Hills Software and Cadence’s tools and secure IP, we can ensure the safety of tomorrow.

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.

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

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

Longfellow's metaphorical footprints on the sands of time is more profound and eternal no doubt but a footprint for silicon (a form of sand isn't it?) is as important for PCB designers. So, here we will list the steps to create a fo...(read more)

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)

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

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 

The IEEE has announced the publication of the new 1801-2013 standard, also known as UPF 2.1, and immediate availability for free download through the IEEE 1801-2013 Get Program. Even though the standard is new to the whole world, for the people of the IEEE working group this standard is finally done and is in the past now.

There is a Chinese saying "好事多磨" which means "good things take time to happen." I forgot the exact time when I first joined the working group for the new standard -- about two and half years ago -- but I do remember long hours of meetings and many "lively" debates and discussions. Since the "hard time" has passed us, I would like to share some fun facts about the working group and the standard.

• The 1801 working group is the largest entity based ballot group in IEEE-SA history.
• The new standard was initially planned for 2012, but was delayed purely due to the large amount of work required.
• At one point, the group was debating on whether the new standard should be called UPF 2.1 or 3.0. It may sound weird now but we spent quite some time discussing this. Eventually we settled on 2.1 as it was the original plan.
• The 1801-2013 document has 358 pages which is 53% thicker than previous version (the sheer amount of changes in the new standard indicate that this is more than just a normal incremental update of the previous version as suggested by naming it 2.1)
• Around 300 real issues were reported over the previous version and a majority of them were fixed in the new release.
• This is the first release with constructs and semantics coming from Common Power Format (CPF), a sign of convergence of the two industry leading power formats.
• There are about 100 working group meetings in my Outlook calendar since 2011, with meeting times ranging from 2 hours to 8 hours.
• We extensively used Google Drive (which was called Google Docs when the working group started), a great tool for productivity. I cannot imagine how any standard could have been done before Google existed!

Personally, I had an enjoyable journey, especially from having the privilege to work with many industry experts who are all passionate about low power. I do have one more thing to share though. My older daughter went from middle school to high school during the period of the development of the new standard. Since most of the meetings took place in the early morning California time, she had to endure the pain of listening to all these discussions on power domain, power switches, etc. on her way to school.

I asked her if she learned anything. She told me that other than being able to recognize the voices of Erich, John and Joe on the line, she also learned that she would never want to become an electrical or computer engineer! She was so happy that the meetings stopped a couple of months ago. But what I did not tell her is that the meetings will resume after DAC! Well, I am sure this will be a big motivation for her to get her own driving license in the summer.

If you want to get some quick technical insights into the new standard, check out my recent EE Times article IEEE 1801-2013: A bold step towards power format convergence.

Qi Wang

If you weren't able to attend the 2013 DVCon, you missed out on a great IEEE 1801/UPF tutorial delivered by members of the IEEE committee. Accellera had the event recorded and that recording is now posted on the Accellera.org website. Regardless of your work so far with low power design and verification, you need to watch this video.

Power management is becoming ubiquitous in our world. The popular aspect is that reduced power is good for the evironment and that is true. But for those teams that have been building chips around the 40nm node and below, there is another truth. Power management is required simply to get working silicon in many cases. As the industry expands the number of designs with power management and forges deeper into advanced nodes, we steadily identify improvements to the power format descriptions. The most recent set of imporvements to the IEEE 1801 standard are now available in the 2013 version of that standard.

To help bring the standard to life, five representatives from the IEEE joined to deliver a tutorial at DVCon in 2013. Qi Wang (Cadence), Erich Marschner (Mentor), Jeffrey Lee (Synopsys), John Biggs (ARM), and Sushma Honnavarra-Prasad (Broadcom) each contributed to the tutorial. It started with a review of the UPF basics that led to the IEEE 1801 standard delivered by the EDA companies. The IEEE 1801 users then presented tutorial content on how to apply the standard. The session then concluded with a look forward to the IEEE 1801-2013 (UPF 2.1) standard. The standard was released two months after the DVCon tutorial and is available through the Accellera Get program.

So after the bowl games are over and you'vre returned through the woods and back over the river from Grandma's, grab a cup of hot cocoa and learn more about the power standards you may well be using in 2014.

Regards,

Adam "The Jouler" Sherer

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 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 am using virtuoso version IC 6.1.7-64b.500.1, and I am trying to follow the Spectre RF Workshop-Noise-Aware PLL Design Flow(MMSIM 7.1.1) pdf.

I could find the workshop library "pllMMLib", but I cannot find PLL Macro Model Wizard, and I attached my screen.

Could you please help me install the module "PLL Macro Model Wizard"?

Thanks a lot!

Hi All,

I saw the cadence tutorial on measuring IIP3 with 3 tones test (Lets say I have a mixer in the test so two tones are entered in the RF port and one is the LO).

Now, I would like to verify if my receiver meets the bluetooth standard. In the standard it says to enter a signal at -64dBm and two additional signals (interference) 

at -39dBm each which placed one k (lets say k equals to one for the example) channels apart and the other 2k channels apart (so 3 signals enter the RF port). These signals cause an intermodulation product to fall

at the frequency of the desired signal. I would like to measure the IIP3 in this case. 

Now, I need to enter 4 tones and the IIP3 is measured (based on cadence tutorial) using sweep in the hb.

I do not want to sweep power since I need to enter exact power. I tried to use multi sinusoidal option in the port with exact power but it does not work.

How in general am I be able to check communication standard in this way using virtuoso and measure IIP3?

Can someone please help me?

Thanks in advance! 

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?

I have a script to handle many polys in memory in allegro. 

But after the completion of the script, 

I run the axlPolyMemUse(), it reports (31922 0 0 55076 252482)

Seems too many polys are still in the memory，and they are not being used. 

So how to delete these polys from the memory? And reclaim the memory?

BTW. I have no skill dev license. So gc() function doesn't work. 

Thanks.

Hello All,

After selecting a cline (using axlSingleSelectBox), may I know how to obtain the dbid of the 'pin' connected to the end of the cline?

Thanks All

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

Hi all,

I am creating shapes on plane layers for a coupon and want to void them using axlShapeAutoVoid()

The shapes are attached to a symbol.

I've tried using axlShapeAutoVoid, but this only voids the pins, not the route keepouts created by nc_backdrill.

I also tried selecting the shape, individually, then running axlShapeAutoVoid. That was unsuccessful, also.

planeShapes is a list of shapes I created. The code for voiding:

;run backdrill to get route keepouts
axlShell("setwindow pcb;backdrill setup ;setwindow form.nc_backdrill;FORM nc_backdrill apply ;FORM nc_backdrill close")

foreach(sHape planeShapes
axlShapeAutoVoid(car(sHape))
)

I am working on some SKILL scripts which are loaded by allegro.ilinit at startup.

If I edit my .il-files how do I get them updated in Allegro?

Right now I restart the program but there must be a simpler way.

A newbie question, I know...  

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?

Hello All,

May I know if there is a way to breakup a selected clinesegment into a few clinesegments by just using SKILL code

Thanks All

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 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.

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

Hi,

I've vhdl block containing fsm . IMC not able to auto extract the state machine coded like this:

There is a intermediate state state_mux  between next_state & state.

Pls. help in guiding IMC how to recognize this FSM coding style? 

Snipped of the fsm code:

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

               type state_type is (ST_IDLE, ST_ADDRESS, ST_ACK_ADDRESS, ST_READ, ST_ACK_READ, ST_WRITE, ST_ACK_WRITE, ST_IDLE_BYTE);

               signal state : state_type;

               signal state_mux : state_type;

               signal next_state : state_type;

process(state_mux, start)

         begin

               next_state <= state_mux;

               next_count <= (others => '0');

           case (state_mux) is

                 when ST_IDLE => 

                            if(start = '1') then

                                 next_state <= ST_ADDRESS;

                              end if;

            when ST_ADDRESS =>

   …………….

          when others => null;

         end case;

     end process;

process(scl_clk_n, active_rstn)

               begin

                      if(active_rstn = '0') then

                           state <= ST_IDLE after delay_f;

                  elsif(scl_clk_n'event and scl_clk_n = '1') then

                             state <= next_state after delay_f;

                            end if;

end process;

process(state, start)

               begin

                     state_mux <= state;

               if(start = '1') then

                       state_mux <= ST_IDLE;

                              end if;

               end process;

Thanks

Raghu

Hello!

I have input signal like this  ->  input  wire [ADM_NUM-1:0][1:0] m_axi_ddr_rresp.

When i want to analyze coverage from IMC  this signal not covered!

Can i collect coverage for this signal?

Hi All,

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

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

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

Ok, So I'v got some experiment  Here.

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

In UVM code...

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

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

xcelium> run
TEST3
TEST4

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

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

I just modified TEST5 instead of "TEST3"

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

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

xcelium> run
TEST3
TEST4

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

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

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

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

Hi all,

         I want to know how to run a regressive test in cadence and merge all ncsim .trn file of each test case into a single file to view all waveform in simvision. I am using Makefile to invoke the test case.

         eg:-

               test0:

                     irun -uvm -sv -access +rwc $(RTL) $(INTER) $(PKG) $(TOP) $(probe) +UVM_VERBOSITY=UVM_MEDIUM +UVM_TESTNAME=test0

             test1:

                   irun -uvm -sv -access +rwc $(RTL) $(INTER) $(PKG) $(TOP) $(probe) +UVM_VERBOSITY=UVM_MEDIUM +UVM_TESTNAME=test1

          I just to call test0 followed by test1 or parallel both test and view the waveform for both tests case.

        I new to this tool and help me with it

Hi all,

I need to develop a digital design/verification solution to compile,elaborate and simulate SV designs (basically a complex xrun wrapper). I am an experienced user of xrun and I have done a number of these wrappers over the years but this one is to be more of a tool, intented to be used Company-wise, so it needs to be very well thought and engineered.

It needs to be robust, simple and extensible. It needs to support multi-snapshot elaboration, run regressions on machine farms, collect coverage, create reports, etc.

I've been browsing the vast amount of documentation on XCELIUM and, although very good, I can't find any document which puts together all the pieces of what I am trying to achieve. I suppose I am more clear on the elaboration, compilation and simulation part but I am really lacking on the other areas like : LSF, regressions coverage, where does vManager fits in all this, etc.

I'd appreciate if someone can comment on whether there is a document which depicts how such a DV flow can be put together from scratch, or whether there is a kind of RAK with some example xrun wrapper.

Thanks

Hi

     I want develope basic circuit of DC motor which consist of resistor, inductor and back emf in capture and check its simulation in pspice, for reference I have attached image and link.

https://www.precisionmicrodrives.com/content/ab-025-using-spice-to-model-dc-motors/ .

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

Hi,

I am facing this elaboration error when using Xcelium:

Command>

    xmverilog -v200x +access+r +xm64bit -f vlist -reflib plib -timescale 1ns/1ps

Log>

    xmelab: *E,CUVMUR (<name>.v,538|18): instance 'LUTP0.C GLAT3' of design unit 'tlatntscad12' is unresolved in 'worklib.LUTP0:v'.

I guess the plib was not referred to as the simulation configuration because the tlatntscad12 is included in plib.

The plib is compiled by INCISIVE 13.20 and I am using the Xcelium 19.30.

Please tell me the correct command on how to refer to the library directory compiled by different versions.

Thank you,

I am importing sessions which are run by other people to analyse and I would like to remove them from my vManager Regressions tab as they become obsolete. As I am not the original person who run the sims, I cannot "delete" sessions. What are my options? Thanks.

I'm in the process of weeding a regression test list. I have a coverage database from the full regression list and would like to diff it with the coverage database from the new reduced regression test list. If possible I would than like to trace back any buckets covered with the full list, but not with the partial list, into the original tests that covered them.

Is that possible using IMC? if not, is it possible to do from Specman itself?

(Note that we're not using vManager)

Thanks,

Avidan

When I run simulation with irun, it may use may license features. How can I know which feature(s) a product use? I get below message in cdnshelp:

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

Which Products Are in the License File?

One Cadence product can require more than one license (FEATURE). The product to feature mapping in the license file lists the licenses each product needs.

For example, if the license file lists these features for the NC-VHDL Simulator:

Product Name: Cadence(R) NC-VHDL Simulator
#
Type: Floating Exp Date: 31-jul-2006 Qty: 1
#
Feature: NC_VHDL_Simulator [Version: 9999.999]
#
Feature: Affirma_sim_analysis_env [Version: 9999.999]

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

But, in my license file, I can't find such info. There is only "FEATURE" lines in my license file. How can I get product to feature mapping info?

Thanks!

Hi,

I'm doing fault injection with ncsim and got stuck at the following (and not so useful) message: "ncsim: *E,FLTIGF: [FLT] Failed to inject fault at circuit_tb.U0.n2174." I already tried with other NETs, with SET, SA0, SA1, always the same error occurs.

My scripts so far, considering I already compiled the Verilog testbench and also the gates from the technology library (gate-level simulation):

#this runs ok

ncelab -work worklib -cdslib circuit/trunk/backend/synthesis/work/cds.lib -logfile ncelab.log -errormax 15 -access +wc -status -timescale 1ps/1ps worklib.circuit_tb -fault_file circuit/trunk/backend/synthesis/scripts/fi.list

#this runs ok
ncsim -fault_good_run -fault_tw 1ns:4ns -fault_work fault_db -fault_overwrite worklib.circuit_tb:module -input ../scripts/fs_strobe.tcl -exit

#this runs NOT OK
ncsim -fault_sim_run -fault_work fault_db worklib.circuit_tb:module -input ../scripts/injection.tcl -exit

After the above command I get: "ncsim: *E,FLTIGF: [FLT] Failed to inject fault at circuit_tb.U0.n2174."

Here are the files called from the commands above.

fi.list:

fault_target circuit_tb.U0.n2174 -type SET+SA1+SA0

fs_strobe.tcl:

fs_strobe circuit_tb.WRITE_OUT circuit_tb.PC_OUT[0]

injection.tcl:

fault -stop_severity 3 -inject -time 2ns -type sa1 circuit_tb.U0.n2174

I already checked the NETs with simvision, so their paths are correct.

Any ideas?

PS: I know about Xcellium, however, I don't have it yet.

They say Moore's law is slowing. It may be slowing but it is still running - it has not stopped! And, it has been running at full throttle for quite a few decades now.  The net result of this run? Well, you can't design ICs in isolation from the...(read more)

In the Allegro back-end layout products like Allegro Package Designer Plus, it would be reasonable to assume that the most often used command is none other than “show element” (shortcut key F4). This command, runnable at nearly any t...(read more)

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

Variants seem to be defined as present or not present.

Is there a variant that can assign different parts to the same reference designator? i.e.  R17 can be either 0 ohm 0805 jumper or 12k ohms 0805 resistor.

The simplest way I can think of is to use two parts with the same footprint and overlay them.

Is there a more functional way of doing this?  So that the variant would put the correct part in the BOM and the parts would of course have the same identical footprint.

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.

I would like to add these components to the component bank in ORCAD simulation. Even an accessible or free course that explained how to create these components.