1 Malaysian Ringgit = 74.5586 Hungarian Forint

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 1.601 Croatian Kuna

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 5.7753 Honduran Lempira

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 1.7921 Hong Kong Dollar

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 0.186 British Pound Sterling

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 0.5198 Fiji Dollar

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 0.2103 Euro

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 3.591 Egyptian Pound

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 3.2908 Estonian Kroon

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 29.6112 Algerian Dinar

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 12.6996 Dominican Peso

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 1.5876 Danish Krone

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 5.7989 Czech Republic Koruna

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 131.2717 Costa Rican Colon

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 899.0457 Colombian Peso

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 1.6322 Chinese Yuan Renminbi

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 190.5391 Chilean Peso

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 0.224 Swiss Franc

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 0.3234 Canadian Dollar

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 2.8021 Botswana Pula

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 1.3226 Brazilian Real

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 1.5911 Bolivian Boliviano

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 0.3261 Brunei Dollar

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 0.0873 Bahraini Dinar

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 0.4166 Bulgarian Lev

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 19.6109 Bangladeshi Taka

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 0.3531 Australian Dollar

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 15.3374 Argentine Peso

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 0.4142 Netherlands Antillean Guilder

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 0.8475 United Arab Emirates Dirham

1 Nicaraguan Cordoba Oro = 0.126 Malaysian Ringgit

1 Netherlands Antillean Guilder = 2.4142 Malaysian Ringgit

1 Estonian Kroon = 0.3039 Malaysian Ringgit

1 Danish Krone = 0.6299 Malaysian Ringgit

1 Fiji Dollar = 1.9236 Malaysian Ringgit

1 New Zealand Dollar = 2.6602 Malaysian Ringgit

1 Croatian Kuna = 0.6246 Malaysian Ringgit

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 1.2751 Malaysian Ringgit

Lawrence, Kansas – The Haskell men's golf team finished 8th out of 9 teams at the Ottawa Spring Invitational held at Eagle Bend Golf Course on Monday. The Indians finished with a round score of 344 and the second round was cancelled due to snow on the course. 

1 Dominican Peso = 0.0787 Malaysian Ringgit

NCAA Division II, Emporia State University served as the 2^ndmeet of the Outdoor Track and Field season for the Indians.  Highlights from the meet include:

Ian Stand, a sophomore from Bay Point, California returned to the discus ring and completed a toss of 36.52 meters, an improvement from his first meet.  Stand, also earned a seventh place finish in the shot put with a distance of 10.76 meters. 

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 1.2634 Malaysian Ringgit

1 Brunei Dollar = 3.0667 Malaysian Ringgit

Differentiating good IP from mediocre or bad IP is getting more difficult, in part because it depends upon how and where it is used and in part, because even the best IP may work better in one system than another—even in chips developed by the same vendor.  

So, how do you measure IP quality and why it is so complicated?

The answer depends on who is asking. Most of the time, the definition of IP quality depends on your vantage point.  If you are an R&D manager, IP quality means something. If you are a global supply manager, IP quality means something else. If you are an SoC start-up, your measure of quality is quite different from that of an established fabless company. If you are designing IP in-house, then your considerations are very different than being a commercial IP vendor. If you are designing an automotive SoC, then we are in a totally different category. How about as an IP vendor? How do you articulate IP quality metrics to your customers?

This varies greatly by the type of IP, as well. When it comes to interface (hard) IP and controllers, if you are an R&D manager, your goal is to design IP that meets the IP specifications and PPA (power, performance, and area) targets. You need to validate your design via silicon test chips. This applies to all hard PHYs, which must be mapped to a particular foundry process. For controllers that are in RTL form—we called these soft IP—you have to synthesize them into a particular target library in a particular foundry process in order to realize them in a physical form suitable for SoC integration. Of course, your design will need to go through a series of design validation steps via simulation, design verification and passing the necessary DRC checks, etc. In addition, you want to see the test silicon in various process corners to ensure the IP is robust and will perform well under normal process variations in the production wafers.

For someone in IP procurement, the measure of quality will be based on the maturity of the IP. This involves the number of designs that have been taped out using this IP and the history of bug reports and subsequent fixes. You will be looking for quality of the documentation and the technical deliverables. You will also benchmark the supplier’s standard operating procedures for bug reporting and technical support, as well as meeting delivery performance in prior programs. This is in addition to the technical teams doing their technical diligence.

An in-house team that is likely to design IP for a particular SoC project will be using an established design flow and will have legacy knowledge of last generation’s IP. They may be required to design the IP with some reusability in mind for future programs. However, such reusability requirements will not need to be as stringent and as broad as those of commercial IP vendors because there are likely to be established metrics and procedures in place to follow as part of the design team’s standard operating procedures. Many times, new development based on a prior design that has been proven in use will be started, given this stable starting point. All of these criteria help the team achieve a quality outcome more easily.

Then, if designing for an automotive SoC, additional heavy lifting is required.  Aside from ensuring that the IP meets the specifications of the protocol standards and passes the compliance testing, you also must pay attention to meeting functional safety requirements. This means adherence to ISO 26262 requirements and subsequently achieving ASIL certification. Oftentimes, even for IP, you must perform some AEC-Q100-related tests that are relevant to IP, such as ESD, LU, and HTOL.

To read more, please visit: https://semiengineering.com/why-ip-quality-is-so-difficult-to-determine/

PCI-SIG DevCon 2019 APAC tour has come to Tokyo and Taipei this year. The focus is predominantly around the latest updates for PCIe Gen 5 which its version 1.0 specification was just released this year in May.  A series of presentations provided by PCI-SIG on the day 1 with comprehensive information covering all aspects of Gen 5 specification, including protocol, logical, electrical, compliance updates. On the day 2 (only in Taipei), several member companies shared their view on Testing, PCB analysis and Signal integrity. The exhibit is also another spotlight of this event where the member companies showcased their latest PCIe solutions.

Presentation Track (Taipei), Exhibit (Tokyo), Exhibit (Taipei) 

Cadence, as the market leading PCIe IP vendor, participated APAC tour this year with bringing in its latest PCIe IP solution offering (Gen 5/4) to the region as well as showcasing two live demo setups in the exhibit floor. One setup is the PCIe software development kit (SDK) while the other is the Interop/compliance/debug platform. Both come with the Cadence PCIe Gen 4 hardware setup and its corresponding software kit.

The SDK can be used for Device Driver Development, Firmware Development, and for pre-silicon emulation as well. It supports Xtensa and ARM processor with Linux OS and it also equip with Ethernet interface which can be used for remote debugging. It also supports PCIe stress tests for Speed change, link enable/disable, entry/exist for lower power states, …etc. 

Cadence PCIe 4.0 Software Development Kit

The “System Interop/Compliance/Debug platform” was set up to test with multiple endpoint and System platforms. This system come with integrated Cadence software for basic system debug without the need for analyzer to perform the analysis, such as LTSSM History, TS1/TS2 transmitted/received with time stamp, Link training phases, Capturing Packet errors details, Capturing PHY TX/RX internal state machine details, ...etc.

Cadence PCIe System Interop/Compliance/Debug Platform

The year 2019 is certainly a "fruitful year" for the PCIe as more Gen 4 products are now available in the market, Gen 5 v1.0 specification got officially ratified, and PCI-SIG's revealing of Gen 6 specification development. We were glad to be part of this APAC tour with the chance to further introduce Cadence’s complete and comprehensive PCIe IP solution.

See you all next year in APAC again!

More Information

For more information on Cadence's PCIe IP offerings, see our PCI Express page.

For more information on PCIe in general, and on the various PCI standards, see the PCI-SIG website.

Related Posts

• Blog: Did You “Stress Test” Yet? Essential Step to Ensure a Quality PCIe 4.0 Product
• Blog: PCIe Gen4: It’s Official, We’re Compliant
• Blog: PCIe 3.0 Still Shines While PCIe Keeps Evolving
• Blog: The PCIe 4.0 Era Continues at PCI-SIG Developers Conference 2016

Formal verification is a complex technology that has traditionally required experts or specialized teams who stood apart from the IC design and verification flow. Taking a different approach, a new release of the Cadence JasperGold formal verification platform (June 8, 2015) provides formal techniques that complement simulation, emulation, and debugging in the form of “Apps” or under-the-hood solutions that any design or verification engineer can use.

JasperGold was the initial (in fact only) product of Jasper Design Automation, acquired by Cadence in 2014. Jasper pioneered the formal Apps concept several years ago. While the company had previously sold JasperGold as a one-size-fits-all solution, Jasper began selling semi-automated JasperGold Apps that solved specific problems using formal analysis technology.

The new release is the next generation of JasperGold and will be available later this month. It includes three major improvements over previous Cadence and Jasper formal analysis offerings:

• A unified Cadence Incisive and JasperGold formal verification platform delivers up to 15X performance gain over previous solutions.
• JasperGold is integrated into the Cadence System Development Suite, where it provides formal-assisted simulation, emulation, and coverage. As a result, System Development Suite users can find bugs three months earlier than existing verification methods.
• JasperGold’s formal analysis engines are integrated with the recently announced Indago debug platform, automating root cause analysis and on-the-fly, what-if exploration.

Best of Both Formal Verification Worlds

Taking advantage of technologies from both Cadence and Jasper, the new JasperGold represents a “best of both worlds” solution, according to Pete Hardee, product management director at Cadence. This solution combines technologies from the Cadence Incisive Enterprise Verifier and Incisive Formal Verifier with JasperGold formal analysis engines.

For example, to ease migration from Incisive formal tools, Cadence has integrated an Incisive common front end into the JasperGold apps platform. Jasper formal engines can run within the Incisive run-time environment. Cadence has also brought some selected Incisive formal engines into JasperGold.

As shown to the right, the JasperGold platform supports both the existing JasperGold front-end parser and the Incisive front-end parser. Hardee observed that this dual parser arrangement simplifies migration from Incisive formal tools to JasperGold, and provides a common compilation environment for people who want to use JasperGold with Incisive simulation. Further, the common run-time environment enables formal-assisted simulation.

The combination of JasperGold engines and Incisive engines supports two use models for formal analysis: formal proofs and bug hunting. In the first case, formal engines try all combinations of inputs without a testbench. The test is driven by formal properties written in languages such as SVA (SystemVerilog assertions) or PSL (Property Specification Language). Completion of a property is exhaustive proof that something can or cannot happen. This provides a “much stronger result” than simulation, Hardee said.

He also noted that formal analysis doesn’t necessarily require that all properties are completed. “You can get a lot of value even if proofs don’t complete,” he said. “Proofs that run deep enough to find bugs are just fine.”

Bug hunting involves random searches, and JasperGold bug hunting engines are very fast. However, these engines don’t necessarily use the most optimal path to get to a bug. So, Cadence engineers brought a constraint solver from Incisive and integrated it into JasperGold. “It looks at the constraints in the environment and gives you a better starting point,” Hardee said. “It takes more up-front time, but once you’ve done that the bug hunting engines can actually take a shorter path and find a bug a lot quicker.”

Another new JasperGold capability from the Incisive Formal Verifier is called “search pointing.” This uses simulation to penetrate deeply into the state space, and then kicks off a random formal search from a given point that you’ve reached in simulation. This technique makes it possible to find bugs that are very deep in the design.

It is probably clear by now that a number of different formal “engines” may be required to solve a given verification problem. Traditionally, a formal tool (or user) will farm a problem out to many engines and see which one works best. To put more intelligence into that process, Cadence launched the Trident “multi-cooperating engine” a couple of years ago. That has now been brought into JasperGold, where it helps “orchestrate” the engines according to what will work best for the design. This is a big part of the reason for the 15X speedup noted earlier in this post.

Integration with System Development Suite

The Cadence System Development Suite is an integrated set of hardware/software development and verification engines, including virtual prototyping, Incisive simulation, emulation, and FPGA-based prototyping. As shown below, JasperGold technology is integrated into the System Development Suite in several places, including formal-assisted debug, formal-assisted verification closure, formal-assisted simulation, formal-assisted emulation, and the Incisive vManager verification planning tool.

Formal-assisted emulation sounds like it should be easy, especially since Cadence has both accelerated verification IP (VIP) and assertion-based VIP. However, there’s a complication. Accelerated VIP represents less verification content than simulation VIP, because you have to remove many checkers to get VIP to compile on a Palladium emulator. That’s because the Palladium requires synthesizable code.

What you can do, however, is use assertion-based VIP in “snoop mode” as shown below. Assertion-based VIP coded in synthesizable SystemVerilog can replace the missing checkers in accelerated VIP. In this diagram, everything in the green box is running in the emulator and is thus completely accelerated.

Another example of formal-assisted emulation has to do with deep traces. As Hardee noted, emulation will produce very long traces, and it can be very difficult to find a point of interest in the trace and determine what caused an error. With formal-assisted emulation, users can find interesting events within the traces and create properties that mark them, so a debugger can find these events and trace back to the root cause.

Formal-assisted verification closure is available with the new JasperGold release. This is possible because you can use the vManager product to determine which tasks were completed by formal engines. It’s important information for verification managers who are not used to formal tools, Hardee noted.

Another aspect of formal-assisted verification closure is the JasperGold Unreachability Analysis (UNR) App, which can save simulation users weeks of time and effort. This App takes in the simulation coverage database and RTL, and automatically generates properties to explore coverage holes and determine if holes are reachable or unreachable. The App then generates an unreachable coverage point database. If the unreachable code does something useful, there’s a bug in the design or the testbench; if not, you don’t have to worry about it. The diagram below shows how it works.

Formal-Assisted Debugging

The third major component of the JasperGold announcement is the integration of formal analysis into the Indago debugging platform. As shown below, this platform has several apps, including the Indago Debug Analyzer. Two formal debug capabilities from the Jasper Visualize environment have been added to the the Indago Debug Analyzer:

• Highlight Relevant Logic: This highlights the “cone of influence,” or the logic that is involved in reaching a given point
• Why: This button highlights the immediate causes for a given event, and allows users to trace backwards in time

More formal capabilities will come with the Indago Advanced Debug Analyzer app, scheduled for release towards the end of 2015. This includes Quiet Trace, a Jasper capability that reduces trace activity to transactions relevant to an event. Also, a what-if analysis allows on-the-fly trace editing and recalculation to explore effects and sensitivities, without having to re-compile and re-execute the simulation.

Finally, Cadence has a Superlint flow that is now fully integrated with the JasperGold Visualize debugger. This two-tiered flow includes a basic lint capability as well as automated formal analysis based on the JasperGold Structural Property Synthesis app. “This could be a very good entry point for designers to start using formal,” Hardee said.

“Formal is taking off,” Hardee concluded. “People are no longer talking about return on investment for formal—they have established that. Now they’re supporting a proliferation of formal in their companies such that a wider set of people experience the benefit from that proven return on investment.”

Further information is available at the JasperGold Formal Verification Platform (Apps) page.

Richard Goering

Related Blog Posts

- JUG Keynote—How Jasper Formal Verification Technology Fits into the Cadence Flow

- Why Cadence Bought Jasper—A New Era in Formal Analysis

- Q&A: An R&D Perspective on Formal Verification—Past, Present and Future

Hi,

I'm a newbie and I'm working on a mixed-signal chip in Innovus. I've got a few analog LEF files that I've imported into my floorplan as macros.

My chip has got two power domains - VCC and VBAT.

One of the macro in the VBAT domain uses VBAT and GND as power rails myloweslife.com.

On doing Special-Route, I've got a lot of minute power rails for the standard cells, as expected.

But, the VBAT power rails are not getting extended till the outer power rings. Only the GND rails are correctly getting extended till the outer power rings.

A screen shot is attached for reference.

Thanks for any help

Hi,

I'm a newbie and I'm working on a mixed-signal chip in Innovus. I've got a few analog LEF files that I've imported into my floorplan as macros.

My chip has got two power domains - VCC and VBAT.

One of the macro in the VBAT domain uses VBAT and GND as power rails KrogerFeedback.com.

On doing Special-Route, I've got a lot of minute power rails for the standard cells, as expected.

But, the VBAT power rails are not getting extended till the outer power rings. Only the GND rails are correctly getting extended till the outer power rings.

A screen shot is attached for reference.

Thanks for any help