1 Brunei Dollar = 18.9903 Ukrainian Hryvnia

1 Brunei Dollar = 5.0161 Turkish Lira

1 Brunei Dollar = 12.1479 Seychellois Rupee

1 Brunei Dollar = 2.6579 Saudi Riyal

1 Brunei Dollar = 4621.7044 Paraguayan Guarani

1 Brunei Dollar = 2.9752 Polish Zloty

1 Brunei Dollar = 3.0667 Malaysian Ringgit

1 Brunei Dollar = 10.9702 Maldivian Rufiyaa

1 Brunei Dollar = 0.5898 Cayman Islands Dollar

1 Brunei Dollar = 75.0393 Kenyan Shilling

1 Brunei Dollar = 75.4822 Japanese Yen

1 Brunei Dollar = 11.0126 Egyptian Pound

1 Brunei Dollar = 5.0056 Chinese Yuan Renminbi

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/

With more and more SoCs employing sophisticated interconnect IP to link multiple processor cores, caches, memories, and dozens of other IP functions, the designs are enabling a new generation of low-power servers and high-performance mobile devices. The complexity of the interconnects and their advanced configurability contributes to already formidable design and verification challenges which lead to the following questions:

While your interconnect subsystem might have a correct functionality, are you starving your IP functions of the bandwidth they need? Are requests from latency-critical initiators processed on time? How can you ensure that all applications will receive the desired bandwidth in steady-state and corner use-cases?

To answer these questions, Cadence recommends the Performance Verification Methodology to ensure that the system performance meets requirements at the different levels:

1. Performance characterization: The first level of verification aims to verify the path-to-path traffic measuring the performance envelope. It targets integration bugs like clock frequency, buffer sizes, and bridge configuration. It requires to analyze the latency and bandwidth of design’s critical paths.
2. Steady state workloads: The second level of verification aims to verify the master-by-master defined loads using traffic profiles. It identifies the impact on bandwidth when running multi-master traffic with various Quality-of-Service (QoS) settings. It analyzes the DDR sub-system’s efficiency, measures bandwidth and checks whether masters’ QoS requirements are met.
3. Application specific use cases: The last level of verification simulates the use-cases and reaches the application performance corner cases. It analyzes the master-requested bandwidth as well as the DDR sub-system’s efficiency and bandwidth.

Cadence has developed a set of tools to assist customers in performance validation of their SoCs. Cadence Interconnect Workbench simplifies the setup and measurement of performance and verification testbenches and makes debugging of complex system behaviors a snap. The solution works with Cadence Verification IPs and executes on the Cadence Xcelium® Enterprise Simulator or Cadence Palladium® Accellerator/Emulator, with coverage results collected and analyzed in the Cadence vManager  Metric-Driven Signoff Platform.

To verify the performance of the Steady State Workloads, Arm has just released a new AMBA Adaptive Traffic Profile (ATP) specification which describes AMBA abstract traffic attributes and defines the behavior of the different traffic profiles in the system.

With the availability of Cadence Interconnect Workbench and AMBA VIP support of ATP, early adopters of the AMBA ATP specification can begin working immediately, ensuring compliance with the standard, and achieving the fastest path to SoC performance verification closure.

For more information on the AMBA Adaptive Traffic Profile, you can visit Dimitry's blog on AMBA Adaptive Traffic Profiles: Addressing The Challenge. 

More information on Cadence Interconnect Workbench solution is available at Cadence Interconnect Solution webpage.

Thierry

Test chips are becoming more widespread and more complex at advanced process nodes as design teams utilize early silicon to diagnose problems prior to production. But this approach also is spurring questions about whether this approach is viable at 7nm and 5nm, due to the rising cost of prototyping advanced technology, such as mask tooling and wafer costs.

Semiconductor designers have long been making test chips to validate test structures, memory bit cells, larger memory blocks, and precision analog circuits like current mirrors, PLLs, temperature sensors, and high-speed I/Os. This has been done at 90nm, 65nm, 40nm, 32nm, 28nm, etc., so having test chips at 16nm, 7nm, or finer geometries should not be a surprise. Still, as costs rise, there is debate about whether those chips are over-used given advancements in tooling, or whether they should be utilized even more, with more advanced diagnostics built into them.

Modern EDA tools are very good. You can simulate and validate almost anything with certain degree of accuracy and correctness. The key to having good and accurate tools and accurate results (for simulation) is the quality of the foundry data provided. The key to having good designs (layouts) is that the DRC deck must be of high quality and accurate and must catch all the things you are not supposed to do in the layout. Most of the challenges in advanced node is in the FEOL where semiconductor physics and lithography play outsize roles. Issues that were not an issue at more mature nodes can manifest themselves as big problems at 7nm or 5nm. Process variation across the wafer and variation across a large die also present problems that were of no consequence in more mature nodes.

The real questions to be asked are as follows:

What is the role of test chips in SoC designs?

1. Do all hard IP require test chips for validation?
2. Are test chips more important at advanced nodes compared to more mature nodes?
3. Is the importance of test chip validation relative to the type of IP protocols?
4. What are the risks if I do not validate in silicon?

In complex SoC designs, there are many high-performance protocols such as LPDDR4/4x PHY, PCIe4 PHY, USB3.0 PHY, 56G/112G SerDes, etc. Each one of these IP are very complex in and by itself. If there is any chance of failure that is not detected prior to SoC (tapeout) integration, the cost of retrofit is huge. This is why the common practice is to validate each one of these complex IP in silicon before committing to use such IP in chip integration. The test chips are used to validate that the IP are properly designed and meet the functional specifications of the protocols. They are also used to validate if sufficient margins are designed into the IP to mitigate variances due to process tolerances. All high-performance hard IP go through this test chip/silicon validation process. Oftentimes, marginality is detected at this stage. In advanced nodes, it is also important to have the test chips built under different process corners. This is intended to simulate process variations in production wafers so as to maximize yields. Advanced protocols such as 112G, GDDR6, HBM2, and PCIe4 are incredibly complex and sensitive to process variations. It is almost impossible to design these circuits and try to guarantee their performance without going through the test chip route.

Besides validating performance of the IP protocols, test silicon is also used to validate robustness of ESD structures, sensitivity to latch up, and performance degradation over wide temperature ranges. All these items are more critical in advanced nodes than more mature modes. Test chips are vehicles to guarantee design integrity in bite-size chunks. It is better to deal with any potential issues in smaller blocks than to try to fix them in the final integrated SoC.

Test chips will continue to play a vital role in helping IP and SoC teams lower the risk of their designs, and assuring optimal quality and performance in the foreseeable future. They are not going away!

To read more, please visit https://semiengineering.com/test-chips-play-larger-role-at-advanced-nodes/

Verification of a USB4 router design is not just about USB4 but also about the inclusion of the three other major protocols namely, USB3, DisplayPort (DP), and PCI Express (PCIe). These protocols can be simultaneously tunneled through a USB4 router. Put in simple terms, such tunneling involves the conversion of the respective native USB3, DP, or PCIe protocol traffic into the USB4 transport layer packets, which are tunneled through a USB4 fabric, and converted back into the respective original native protocol traffic.

It may sound simple but is perhaps not.

There are several aspects in a router that come into picture to carry out this task of conversion of native protocol traffic, route it to the intended destination, and then convert it back to the original form. Some of those are the USB3, DP and PCIe protocol adapters, transport mechanism using routing, flow control, paths, path set-up and teardown, control and configuration, configuration spaces.

That is not all. There are core USB4 specific logical layer intricacies as well, which carry out the tasks of ensuring that all the USB4 ports and links are working as desired to provide up to 40Gbps speed and that the USB4 traffic flows through out the fabric in the intended way. These bring on the table features like High Speed link, ordered sets, lane initialization, lane adapter state machine, low power, lane bonding, RS-FEC, side band channel, sleep and wake, error checking.

All of these put together give rise to a very large verification space against which a USB4 router design should be verified. If we were to break down this space it can be broadly put in the following major dimensions,

• Protocol Adapter Layer
  • USB3 tunneling
  • DP tunneling
  • PCIe tunneling
• Host Interface Adapter Layer
• Transport Layer
  • Flow control
  • Routing
  • Paths
• Configuration layer and control packet protocol
• Configuration spaces
• Logical Layer

The independent verification of these dimensions is not all that would qualify the design as verified. They have to be verified in various combinations of each other too. Overall, all the parts of a USB4 router system need to be working together coherently.

For example, the following diagram depicts the various layers that a USB4 router may comprise of,

A USB4 router or a domain of routers does not work on its own. There is a Connection Manager per domain, which is a software-based entity managing a domain. A router provides the various capabilities for a Connection Manager to carry out its responsibilities of managing a domain.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the spectrum of verification of a USB4 router ranges from the very minute details of logical layer to the system-level like multiple dependencies as the whole USB4 system is brought up layer by layer, step-by-step.

Cadence has a mature Verification IP solution that can help in the verification of USB4 designs. Cadence has taken an active part in the working group that defined the USB4 specification and has created a comprehensive Verification IP that is being used by multiple members in the last two years.

If you plan to have a USB4 compatible design, you can reduce the risk of adopting a new technology by using our proven and mature USB4 Verification IP. Please contact your Cadence local account team for more details and to get connected.

The PCI-SIG finalized the PCIe 4.0 specification with doubling the data to 16GT/s from 8GT/s in PCIe 3.0 in 2017. Products implementing this technology have begun to hit the market in 2019. Earlier this year, AMD announced it X570 chipset would support the PCIe 4.0 interface and Phison also introduced the world’s first PCIe 4.0 SSD.  With the increasing companies are working on PCIe 4.0 related product development, Cadence, as the key and leading PCIe IP solution vendor in the market, has strived for continuous enhancement of its PCIe 4.0 to be the best in the class IP solution. From our initial PCIe 4.0 solution in 4 years ago (revealed in 2015), we have made many advancements and improvements adding features such as Multi-link with any lane assignment, U.2/U.3 connector, and Automotive support. The variety of applications that PCIe4 finds a home in require extensive robustness and reliability testing over and above the compliance tests mandated by the standard body, i.e., PCI-SIG.

PCIe 4.0 TX Eye-Diagram, Loop-back Test (Long-reach) and RX JTOL Margin Test

Cadence IP team has also implemented additional "stress tests" in conjunction to its already comprehensive IP characterization plan, covering electrical, functional, ESD, Latch-up, HTOL, and yield sorting. Take the Receiver Jitter Tolerance Test (JTOL) for instance. JTOL is a key index to test the quality of the receiver of a system. This test use data generator/analyzer to send data to a SerDes receiver which is then looped back through the transmitter back to the instrument. The data received is compared to the data generated and the errors are counted. The data generator introduce jitter into the transmit data pattern to see how well the receiver functions under non-ideal conditions. While PCI-SIG compliance can be obtained on a single lane implementation, real world scenarios require wider implementations under atypical operating conditions. Cadence’s PCIe 4.0 IP was tested against to additional stressed conditions, such as different combination of multi-lanes operations, “temperature drift” conditions, e.g., bring up the chip at room temperature and check the JTOL at high temperature. 

PCIe 4.0 Sub-system Stress Test Setup

Besides complying with electrical parameters and protocol requirements, real world systems have idiosyncrasies of their own. Cadence IP team also built a versatile “System test” setup in house to perform a system level stress test of its PCIe 4.0 sub-system. The Cadence PCIe 4.0 sub-system is connected to a large number of server and desktop motherboards. This set up is tested with 1000s of cycles of repeated stress under varying operating conditions. Stress tests include speed change from 2.5G all the way to 16G and down, link enable/disable, cold boot, warm boot, entering and exiting low power states, and BER test sweeping presets across different channels. Performing this level of stress test verifies that our IP will operate to spec robustly and reliably when presented with the occasional corner cases in the real world.

More Information

For the demonstration of Cadence PCIe4 PHY Receiver Test and Sub-system Stress Test, see the video:

• PCIe 4.0 Sub-system Stress Test
• PCIe 4.0 PHY Receiver JTOL Test

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: 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

USB4 can simultaneously tunnel USB3, PCIe and DisplayPort native protocol traffic through a hierarchy of USB4 routers. The key to tunneling of these protocols is routing table programmed at each ingress adapter. An entry of a routing table maps an incoming HopID, called Input/Ingress HopID to a corresponding pair of Output/Egress Adapter and Egress/Output HopID.

The responsibility of programming routing tables lies with the Connection Manager. Connection Manager, having the complete view of the hierarchy of the routers, programs the routing tables at all relevant adapter ports. Accordingly, the USB3, PCIe and DisplayPort protocol tunneled packets are routed, and reach their respective intended destinations.

The diagrammatic representation below is an example of tunneling of USB3 protocol traffic from USB4 Host Router to USB4 Peripheral Device Router through a USB4 Hub Router. The path from USB3 Host to USB3 Device is depicted by routing tables indicated at A -> B -> C -> D, and the one from USB3 Device to USB3 Host by routing tables indicated at E -> F -> G -> H . Note that the Input HopID from and Output HopID to all three protocol adapters for USB3, PCIe and DisplayPort Aux traffic, are fixed as 8, and for DisplayPort Main Link traffic are fixed as 9.

Once the native protocol traffic come into the transport layer of a USB4 router, the transport layer of it does not know to which native protocol a tunneled packet belongs to. The only way a transport layer tunneled packet is routed through the hierarchy of the routers is using the HopID values and the information programmed in the routing tables.

The figure below shows an example of tunneling of all the three USB3, PCIe and DisplayPort protocol traffic together. The transport layer tunneled packets of each of these native protocols are transported simultaneously through the routers hierarchy.

 Cadence has a mature Verification IP solution for the verification of USB3, PCIe and DisplayPort tunneling. This solution also employs the industry proven VIPs of each of these native protocols for native USB3, PCIe and DisplayPort traffic.

Once while eating dinner in Montreal, our friendly, intoxicated waitress plopped herself in my lap and proceeded to tell us about how obsessed she was with the CD that was playing - singing out the lyrics at an ungodly volume and flinging her arms about. Wow, I thought to myself, people who listen to Morcheeba sure seem to have a lot of fun, and promised to check them out.

Several CDs later, they are firmly one of my favorites. And their trip hop meditation, 2003’s Charango remains one of my most played CDs.

Morcheeba (Mor = more, Cheeba = pot) are brothers Ross and Paul Godfrey with singer Skye Edwards (who has since been replaced). Part trance, part ambience, Charango is full of smooth, snogworthy jams. And just as you surrender to its seductive groove, Slick Rick shows up with a rap called “Women Lose Weight”.

Lamenting his wife putting on weight after having kids and stalled by his mistress who wants a clean break before she shacks up with him, he decides the easiest way out of it all is to kill the spouse. Considering different ways to do the deed, he finally rams his car into her Chevy over a long lunch break one fine day. It is an unexpected, stunning, tongue-in-cheek social commentary that makes it a CD you won’t forget easily.

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

I’m writing this on August 15. It is our Independence Day. A young Kashmiri Muslim told me in Srinagar a few months ago that this is the day on which everyone there tries to stay indoors. This is not because the people support Pakistan, but because they are most suspect on August 15. You are questioned, searched, and locked. If any of the readers have had a chance to view Sanjay Kak’s powerful documentary Jashn-e-Azadi (How We Celebrate Freedom) you’ll see how Sanjay, coming in to Srinagar for a visit around Independence Day, is struck by the fact that the only people present for the ceremony are the cops and members of the armed forces. (That’s Rave Out #1. For Jashn-e-Azadi.)

Last week’s announcement of the Indian Express-CNN/IBN poll, that an overwhelming majority of Kashmiris in the valley want azadi, also underlines the importance of a genuine rethinking on the question of independence rather than empty, nationalist sabre-rattling. (Anyway, that’s Rave Out #2. For Indian Express and CNN/IBN, as well as the good folk at CSDS who designed the poll.)

This is a good day for re-opening the pages of 13 December: A Reader, in which thirteen writers and journalists point out the injustice involved in the quick media-lynching of SAR Geelani and the denial of a fair trial to Afzal Guru. (This would be Rave Out #3, for the book, although wouldn’t it be great if the book weren’t needed?)

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

Pablo Bartholomew’s beautiful photo-show “Outside In” opened in Manhattan a few evenings ago. The exhibition is being held at Bodhi Art in Chelsea. Black-and-white photographs from the seventies and the eighties—reflecting Bartholomew’s engagement with people and places in Delhi, Bombay, and Calcutta.

These are not the pictures that made Bartholomew famous. The undying image of the father brushing the dust from the face of the child he is burying—that was the iconic photograph from the Bhopal tragedy in 1984. It also won for Bartholomew, still in his twenties, the World Press Photo’s Picture of the Year Award.

The images in “Outside In” do not commemorate grim tragedies or celebrate well-publicised public events. Instead, they are documents that offer intimate recall of a period and a milieu. Please click here to look at these photographs.

People who share a context with the photographer will have their own private reading of the scenes. For me, they evoke days when happiness seemed only one chai and a Wills Navy Cut away. There is charm and candor in these scenes. And because the young believe they will live forever, there is nothing defensive or stuck-up or overly self-conscious about their faces and postures.

Even the language of the captions is true to this spirit: “Self-portrait after a trippy night…”; “Nona writing and Alok zonked out…”; “Hanging out with the Maharani Bagh gang….” The exhibition catalogue has a fine essay by Aveek Sen that has also been published in the latest issue of Biblio.

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

Literate Indians should be familiar with Ashis Nandy’s remark: “Cricket is an Indian game accidentally discovered by the English.“ A Trinidadian Indian by the name of Chuck Ramkissoon, in Joseph O’Neill’s superbly inflected novel “Netherland”, is also fond of making bold pronouncements on the behalf of the game he wants to introduce to the U.S. “I’m saying that people, all people, Americans, whoever, are at their most civilized when they’re playing cricket. What’s the first thing that happens when Pakistan and India make peace? They play a cricket match…”

It’s now my turn to be bold: “Netherland” is more of an Indian novel than the recent, much feted, Indian fiction. This is not only because O’Neill’s novel feeds our national obsession with the game. Nor even its exquisite description of what transpires on the playing field: “…. where the white-clad ring of infielders, swanning figures on the vast oval, again and again converge in unison toward the batsman and again and again scatter back to their starting points, a repetition of pulmonary rhythm, as if the field breathed through its luminous visitors.” No. My pronouncement is based on the fact that the Indian characters in the book are highly individualized and yet fully global in their identity. “Netherland” is not a sociological-historical epic thesis, nor is it a shallow, cynical report on injustice in the hinterland. Rich in observation, reporting as much on the interior life as on the life outside, it is a captivating literary achievement. A masterpiece.

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

“I am a small eye poet.” Who once wrote these words in a letter to his mother?

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

In 1981, Jimmy Page, Chris Squire and Alan White got together to form a band, and tried to recruit Robert Plant into it. Plant attended one rehearsal, chose not to join the band, and the project fell through. Had it survived, the band would have called itself XYZ. Why?

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

In the book “The World of _____” by Bennett Alan Weinberg and Bonnie K Bealer, there is a photograph of a label from a jar of pharmaceutical-grade crystals. It reads:

“WARNING: MAY BE HARMFUL IF INHALED OR SWALLOWED. HAS CAUSED MUTAGENIC AND REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS IN LABORATORY ANIMALS. INHALATION CAUSES RAPID HEART RATE, EXCITEMENT, DIZZINESS, PAIN, COLLAPSE, HYPOTENSION, FEVER, SHORTNESS OF BREATH. MAY CAUSE HEADACHE, INSOMNIA, VOMITING, STOMACH PAIN, COLLAPSE AND CONVULSIONS.”

Fill in the blank.

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

X is a song written by Y and famously covered by Z. Time Magazine’s Josh Tyrangiel described it thus:

Y murmured the original like a dirge, but except for a single overwrought breath before the music kicks in, Z treated the 7-min. song like a tiny capsule of humanity, using his voice to careen between glory and sadness, beauty and pain, mostly just by repeating the word X. It’s not only Z’s best song — it’s one of the great songs, and because it covers so much emotional ground and is not (yet) a painfully obvious choice, it has become the go-to track whenever a TV show wants to create instant mood. ‘X can be joyous or bittersweet, depending on what part of it you use,’ says Sony ATV’s Kathy Coleman. ‘It’s one of those rare songs that the more it gets used, the more people want to use it.’

Name X, Y and Z.

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

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.

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

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.

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

This is the 22nd installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Trade wars are on the rise, and it’s enough to get any nationalist all het up and excited. Earlier this week, Narendra Modi’s government announced that it would start imposing tariffs on 28 US products starting today. This is a response to similar treatment towards us from the US.

There is one thing I would invite you to consider: Trump and Modi are not engaged in a war with each other. Instead, they are waging war on their own people.

Let’s unpack that a bit. Part of the reason Trump came to power is that he provided simple and wrong answers for people’s problems. He responded to the growing jobs crisis in middle America with two explanations: one, foreigners are coming and taking your jobs; two, your jobs are being shipped overseas.

Both explanations are wrong but intuitive, and they worked for Trump. (He is stupid enough that he probably did not create these narratives for votes but actually believes them.) The first of those leads to the demonising of immigrants. The second leads to a demonising of trade. Trump has acted on his rhetoric after becoming president, and a modern US version of our old ‘Indira is India’ slogan might well be, “Trump is Tariff. Tariff is Trump.”

Contrary to the fulminations of the economically illiterate, all tariffs are bad, without exception. Let me illustrate this with an example. Say there is a fictional product called Brump. A local Brump costs Rs 100. Foreign manufacturers appear and offer better Brumps at a cheaper price, say Rs 90. Consumers shift to foreign Brumps.

Manufacturers of local Brumps get angry, and form an interest group. They lobby the government – or bribe it with campaign contributions – to impose a tariff on import of Brumps. The government puts a 20-rupee tariff. The foreign Brumps now cost Rs 110, and people start buying local Brumps again. This is a good thing, right? Local businesses have been helped, and local jobs have been saved.

But this is only the seen effect. The unseen effect of this tariff is that millions of Brump buyers would have saved Rs 10-per-Brump if there were no tariffs. This money would have gone out into the economy, been part of new demand, generated more jobs. Everyone would have been better off, and the overall standard of living would have been higher.

That brings to me to an essential truth about tariffs. Every tariff is a tax on your own people. And every intervention in markets amounts to a distribution of wealth from the people at large to specific interest groups. (In other words, from the poor to the rich.) The costs of this are dispersed and invisible – what is Rs 10 to any of us? – and the benefits are large and worth fighting for: Local manufacturers of Brumps can make crores extra. Much modern politics amounts to manufacturers of Brumps buying politicians to redistribute money from us to them.

There are second-order effects of protectionism as well. When the US imposes tariffs on other countries, those countries may respond by imposing tariffs back. Raw materials for many goods made locally are imported, and as these become expensive, so do those goods. That quintessential American product, the iPhone, uses parts from 43 countries. As local products rise in price because of expensive foreign parts, prices rise, demand goes down, jobs are lost, and everyone is worse off.

Trump keeps talking about how he wants to ‘win’ at trade, but trade is not a zero-sum game. The most misunderstood term in our times is probably ‘trade-deficit’. A country has a trade deficit when it imports more than what it exports, and Trump thinks of that as a bad thing. It is not. I run a trade deficit with my domestic help and my local grocery store. I buy more from them than they do from me. That is fine, because we all benefit. It is a win-win game.

Similarly, trade between countries is really trade between the people of both countries – and people trade with each other because they are both better off. To interfere in that process is to reduce the value created in their lives. It is immoral. To modify a slogan often identified with libertarians like me, ‘Tariffs are Theft.’

These trade wars, thus, carry a touch of the absurd. Any leader who imposes tariffs is imposing a tax on his own people. Just see the chain of events: Trump taxes the American people. In retaliation, Modi taxes the Indian people. Trump raises taxes. Modi raises taxes. Nationalists in both countries cheer. Interests groups in both countries laugh their way to the bank.

What kind of idiocy is this? How long will this lose-lose game continue?

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

This is the 23rd installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

I had a strange dream last night. I dreamt that the government had passed a law that made using laptops illegal. I would have to write this column by hand. I would also have to leave my home in Mumbai to deliver it in person to my editor in Delhi. I woke up trembling and angry – and realised how Indian farmers feel every single day of their lives.

My column today is a tale of two satyagrahas. Both involve farmers, technology and the freedom of choice. One of them began this month – but first, let us go back to the turn of the millennium.

As the 1990s came to an end, cotton farmers across India were in distress. Pests known as bollworms were ravaging crops across the country. Farmers had to use increasing amounts of pesticide to keep them at bay. The costs of the pesticide and the amount of labour involved made it unviable – and often, the crops would fail anyway.

Then, technology came to the rescue. The farmers heard of Bt Cotton, a genetically modified type of cotton that kept these pests away, and was being used around the world. But they were illegal in India, even though no bad effects had ever been recorded. Well, who cares about ‘illegal’ when it is a matter of life and death?

Farmers in Gujarat got hold of Bt Cotton seeds from the black market and planted them. You’ll never guess what happened next. As 2002 began, all cotton crops in Gujarat failed – except the 10,000 hectares that had Bt Cotton. The government did not care about the failed crops. They cared about the ‘illegal’ ones. They ordered all the Bt Cotton crops to be destroyed.

It was time for a satyagraha – and not just in Gujarat. The late Sharad Joshi, leader of the Shetkari Sanghatana in Maharashtra, took around 10,000 farmers to Gujarat to stand with their fellows there. They sat in the fields of Bt Cotton and basically said, ‘Over our dead bodies.’ ¬Joshi’s point was simple: all other citizens of India have access to the latest technology from all over. They are all empowered with choice. Why should farmers be held back?

The satyagraha was successful. The ban on Bt Cotton was lifted.

There are three things I would like to point out here. One, the lifting of the ban transformed cotton farming in India. Over 90% of Indian farmers now use Bt Cotton. India has become the world’s largest producer of cotton, moving ahead of China. According to agriculture expert Ashok Gulati, India has gained US$ 67 billion in the years since from higher exports and import savings because of Bt Cotton. Most importantly, cotton farmers’ incomes have doubled.

Two, GMO crops have become standard across the world. Around 190 million hectares of GMO crops have been planted worldwide, and GMO foods are accepted in 67 countries. The humanitarian benefits have been massive: Golden Rice, a variety of rice packed with minerals and vitamins, has prevented blindness in countless new-born kids since it was introduced in the Philippines.

Three, despite the fear-mongering of some NGOs, whose existence depends on alarmism, the science behind GMO is settled. No harmful side effects have been noted in all these years, and millions of lives impacted positively. A couple of years ago, over 100 Nobel Laureates signed a petition asserting that GMO foods were safe, and blasting anti-science NGOs that stood in the way of progress. There is scientific consensus on this.

The science may be settled, but the politics is not. The government still bans some types of GMO seeds, such as Bt Brinjal, which was developed by an Indian company called Mahyco, and used successfully in Bangladesh. More crucially, a variety called HT Bt Cotton, which fights weeds, is also banned. Weeding takes up to 15% of a farmer’s time, and often makes farming unviable. Farmers across the world use this variant – 60% of global cotton crops are HT Bt. Indian farmers are so desperate for it that they choose to break the law and buy expensive seeds from the black market – but the government is cracking down. A farmer in Haryana had his crop destroyed by the government in May.

On June 10 this year, a farmer named Lalit Bahale in the Akola District of Maharashtra kicked off a satyagraha by planting banned seeds of HT Bt Cotton and Bt Brinjal. He was soon joined by thousands of farmers. Far from our urban eyes, a heroic fight has begun. Our farmers, already victimised and oppressed by a predatory government in countless ways, are fighting for their right to take charge of their lives.

As this brave struggle unfolds, I am left with a troubling question: All those satyagrahas of the past by our great freedom fighters, what were they for, if all they got us was independence and not freedom?

© 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

First, the good news. The EDA industry will grow from $6.2 billion in 2015 to $9.0 billion in 2019, according to Gary Smith, chief analyst at Gary Smith EDA. Year-to-year growth rates will range from +4% to +11.2%.

But in his annual presentation on the eve of the Design Automation Conference (DAC 2015), Smith noted that Wall Street is unimpressed. “The people I talk to want long-term steady growth, no sharp up-turns, no sharp downturns,” Smith said. “To the rest of Wall Street, we’re boring.”

Smith spent the rest of his talk noting how EDA can be a lot less boring and, potentially, a whole lot bigger. For starters, what if we add semiconductor IP to EDA revenues? Now we’re looking at $12.2 billion in revenue by 2019, Smith said. (He acknowledged, however, that the IP market itself is going to take a “dip” due to the move towards platform-based IP and away from conventional piecemeal IP).

This still is not enough to get Wall Street’s attention. Another possibility is to bring embedded software development into the EDA industry. This is not a huge market – about $2.6 billion today – but it is an “easy growth market for us,” according to Smith.

Chasing the Big Bucks

But the “big bucks” are in mechanical CAD (MCAD), Smith said. In the past the MCAD market has always been bigger than EDA, but now EDA is catching up. The MCAD market is about $6.6 billion now. Synopsys and Cadence are larger than PTC and Siemens, two of the main players in MCAD.

There may be some good acquisition possibilities coming up for EDA vendors, Smith said – and if we don’t buy MCAD companies, they might buy EDA companies. Consider, for example, that Ansoft bought Apache and Dassault bought Synchronicity. (Note: Siemens PLM Software is a first-time exhibitor at DAC 2015).

What about other domains? Smith said that EDA companies could conceivably move into optical design, applications development software, biomedical design, and chemical design. The last if these is probably the most tenuous; Smith noted that EDA vendors have yet to look into chemical design.

Applications development software is the biggest market on the above list, but that means competing with Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle. “You’re in with the big boys – is that a good idea?” Smith asked.

Perhaps there’s an opening for a “big play” for an MCAD provider. Smith noted that mechanical vendors are focusing on product data management (PDM). This “is really the IT of design,” Smith said. “They have a lot of hope that the IoT [Internet of things] market is going to give them an opportunity to capture the software that goes from the ground to the cloud. Maybe we can let them have PDM and see if we can take the tool market away from them, or acquire it away from them.”

In conclusion, Smith asked, should the EDA industry accelerate its growth? “The mechanical vendors have already shown interest in acquiring EDA vendors,” he said. “We may not have a choice.”

Richard Goering

NOTE: Catch our live blog from DAC 2015, beginning Monday morning, June 8! Click here

Design and verification standards are critical if we want to get a new generation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices into the market, according to panelists at an Accellera Systems Initiative breakfast at the Design Automation Conference (DAC 2015) June 9. However, IoT devices for different vertical markets pose very different challenges and requirements, making the standards picture extremely complicated.

The panel was titled “Design and Verification Standards in the Era of IoT.” It was moderated by industry editor John Blyler, CEO of JB Systems Media and Technology. Panelists were as follows, shown left to right in the photo below:

• Lu Dai, director of engineering, Qualcomm
• Wael William Diab, senior director for strategy marketing, industry development and standardization, Huawei
• Chris Rowen, CTO, IP Group, Cadence Design Systems, Inc.

In opening remarks, Blyler recalled a conversation from the recent IEEE International Microwave Symposium in which a panelist pointed to the networking and application layers as the key problem areas for RF and wireless standardization. Similarly, in the IoT space, we need to look “higher up” at the systems level and consider both software and hardware development, Blyler said.

Rowen helped set some context for the discussion by noting three important points about IoT:

• IoT is not a product segment. Vertical product segments such as automotive, medical devices, and home automation all have very different characteristics.
• IoT “devices” are components within a hierarchy of systems that includes sensors, applications, user interface, gateway application (such as cell phone), and finally the cloud, where all data is aggregated.
• A bifurcation is taking place in design. We are going from extreme scale SoCs to “extreme fit” SoCs that are specialized, low energy, and very low cost.

Here are some of the questions and answers that were addressed during the panel discussion.

Q: The claim was recently made that given the level of interaction between sensors and gateways, 50X more verification nodes would have to be checked for IoT. What standards need to be enhanced or changed to accomplish that?

Rowen: That’s a huge number of design dimensions, and the way you attack a problem of that scale is by modularization. You define areas that are protected and encapsulated by standards, and you prove that individual elements will be compliant with that interface. We will see that many interesting problems will be in the software layers.

Q: Why is standardization so important for IoT?

Dai: A company that is trying to make a lot of chips has to deal with a variety of standards. If you have to deal with hundreds of standards, it’s a big bottleneck for bringing your products to market. If you have good standardization within the development process of the IC, that helps time to market.

When I first joined Qualcomm a few years ago, there was no internal verification methodology. When we had a new hire, it took months to ramp up on our internal methodology to become effective. Then came UVM [Universal Verification Methodology], and as UVM became standard, we reduced our ramp-up time tremendously. We’ve seen good engineers ramp up within days.

Diab: When we start to look at standards, we have to do a better job of understanding how they’re all going to play with each other. I don’t think one set of standards can solve the IoT problem. Some standards can grow vertically in markets like industrial, and other standards are getting more horizontal. Security is very important and is probably one thing that goes horizontally.

Requirements for verticals may be different, but processing capability, latency, bandwidth, and messaging capability are common [horizontal] concerns. I think a lot of standards organizations this year will work on horizontal slices [of IoT].

Q: IoT interoperability is important. Any suggestions for getting that done and moving forward?

Rowen: The interoperability problem is that many of these [IoT] devices are wireless. Wireless is interesting because it is really hard – it’s not like a USB plug. Wireless lacks the infrastructure that exists today around wired standards. If we do things in a heavily wireless way, there will be major barriers to overcome.

Dai: There are different standards for 4G LTE technology for different [geographical] markets. We have to make a chip that can work for 20 or 30 wireless technologies, and the cost for that is tremendous. The U.S., Europe, and China all have different tweaks. A good standard that works across the globe would reduce the cost a lot.

Q: If we’re talking about the need to define requirements, a good example to look at is power. Certainly you have UPF [Unified Power Format] for the chip, board, and module.

Rowen: There is certainly a big role for standards about power management. But there is also a domain in which we’re woefully under-equipped, and that is the ability to accurately model the different power usage scenarios at the applications level. Too often power devolves into something that runs over thousands of cycles to confirm that you can switch between power management levels successfully. That’s important, but it tells you very little about how much power your system is going to dissipate.

Dai: There are products that claim to be UPF compliant, but my biggest problem with my most recent chip was still with UPF. These tools are not necessarily 100% UPF compliant.

One other concern I have is that I cannot get one simulator to pass my Verilog code and then go to another that will pass. Even though we have a lot of tools, there is no certification process for a language standard.

Q: When we create a standard, does there need to be a companion compliance test?

Rowen: I think compliance is important. Compliance is being able to prove that you followed what you said you would follow. It also plays into functional safety requirements, where you need to prove you adhered to the flow.

Dai: When we [Qualcomm] sell our 4G chips, we have to go through a lot of certifications. It’s often a differentiating factor.

Q: For IoT you need power management and verification that includes analog. Comments?

Rowen: Small, cheap sensor nodes tend to be very analog-rich, lower scale in terms of digital content, and have lots of software. Part of understanding what’s different about standardization is built on understanding what’s different about the design process, and what does it mean to have a software-rich and analog-rich world.

Dai: Analog is important in this era of IoT. Analog needs to come into the standards community.

Richard Goering

Cadence Blog Posts About DAC 2015

Gary Smith at DAC 2015: How EDA Can Expand Into New Directions

DAC 2015: Google Smart Contact Lens Project Stretches Limits of IC Design

DAC 2015: Lip-Bu Tan, Cadence CEO, Sees Profound Changes in Semiconductors and EDA

DAC 2015: “Level of Compute in Vision Processing Extraordinary” – Chris Rowen

DAC 2015: Can We Build a Virtual Silicon Valley?

DAC 2015: Cadence Vision-Design Presentation Wins Best Paper Honors

Let’s face it – the EDA industry needs new people and new ideas. One of the best places to find both is academia, and a presentation at the Cadence Theater at the recent Design Automation Conference (DAC 2015) described collaboration models that are working today.

The presentation was titled “Industry/Academia Engagement Models – From PhD Contests to R&D Collaborations.” It included these speakers, shown from left to right in the photo below:

• Prof. Xin Li, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU)
• Chuck Alpert, Senior Software Architect, Cadence
• Prof. Laleh Behjat, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Calgary

Alpert, who was filling in for Zhuo Li, Software Architect at Cadence, was the vice chair of DAC 2015 and will be the general chair of DAC 2016 in Austin, Texas. “My team at Cadence really likes to collaborate with universities,” he said. “We’re a big proponent of education because we really need the best and brightest students in our industry.”

Contests Boost EDA Research

One way that Cadence collaborates with academia is participation in contests. “It’s a great way to formulate problems to academia,” Alpert said. “We can have the universities work on these problems and get some strategic direction.”

For example, Cadence has been involved with the annual CAD contest at the International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD) since the contest was launched in 2012. This is the largest worldwide EDA R&D contest, and it is sponsored by the IEEE Council on EDA (CEDA) and the Taiwan Ministry of Education. Its goals are to boost EDA research in advanced real-world problems and to foster industry-academia collaboration.

Contestants can participate in one of more problems in the three areas of system design, logic synthesis and verification, and physical design. The 2015 contest has attracted 112 teams from 12 regions. Cadence contributes one problem per year in the logic synthesis area. Zhuo Li was the 2012 co-chair and the 2013 chair. The awards will be given at ICCAD in November 2015.

Another step that Cadence has taken, Alpert said, is to “hire lots of interns.” His own team has four interns at the moment. One advantage to interning at Cadence, he said, is that students get to see real-world designs and understand how the tools work. “It helps you drive your research in a more practical and useful direction,” he said.

The Cadence Academic Network co-sponsors the ACM SIGDA PhD Forum at DAC, and Xin Li and Zhuo Li are on the organizing committee. This event is a poster session for PhD students to present and discuss their dissertation research with people in the EDA community. This year’s forum was “packed,” Alpert said, and it’s clear that the event needs a bigger room.

Finally, Alpert noted, Cadence researchers write and publish technical papers at DAC and other conferences, and Cadence people serve on the DAC technical program committee. “We try to be involved with the academic community on a regular basis,” Alpert said. “We want the best and the brightest people to go into EDA because there is still so much innovation that’s needed. It’s a really cool place to be.”

Research Collaboration Exposes Failure Rates

Xin Li presented an example of a successful research collaboration between CMU and Cadence. The challenge was to find a better way to estimate potential failure rates in memory. As noted in a previous blog post, PhD student Shupeng Sun met this challenge with a new statistical methodology that won a Best Poster award at the ACM SIGDA PhD Forum at DAC 2014.

The new methodology is called Scaled-Sigma Sampling (SSS). It calculates the failure rate and accounts for variability in the manufacturing process while only requiring a few hundred, or a few thousand, sample circuit blocks. Previously, millions of samples were required for an accurate validation of a new design, and each sample could take minutes or hours to simulate. It could take a few weeks or months to run one validation.

The SSS methodology requires greatly reduced simulation times. It makes it possible, Li noted, to run simulations overnight and see the results in the morning.

Li shared his secret for success in collaborations. “I want to emphasize that before the collaboration, you have to understand the goal. If you don’t have a clear goal, don’t collaborate. Once you define the goal, stick to it and make it happen.”

Contest Provides Learning Experience

Last year Laleh Behjat handed two of her new PhD students a challenge. “I told them there is an ISPD [International Symposium for Physical Design] contest on placement, and I expect you to participate and I expect you to win. Not knowing anything about placement, I don’t think they realized what I was asking them.”

The 2015 contest was called the Blockage-Aware Detailed Routing-Driven Placement Contest. Results were announced at the end of March at ISPD. And the University of Calgary team, despite its lack of placement experience, took second place.

Such contests provide a good learning tool, according to Behjat. Graduate students in EDA, she said, “have to be good programmers. They have to work in teams and be collaborative, be able to innovate, and solve the hardest problems I have seen in engineering and science. And they have to think outside the box.” A contest can bring out all these attributes, she said.

Further, Behjat noted, contest participants had access to benchmarks and to a placement tool. They didn’t have to write tools to find out if their results were good. Industry sponsors, meanwhile, got access to good students and new approaches for solving problems.

“You can see Cadence putting a big amount of time, effort and money to get students here and get them excited about doing contests,” she said. She advised students in the theater audience to “talk to people in the Cadence booth and see if you can have more ideas for collaboration.”

Richard Goering

Related Blog Posts

EDA Plus Academia: A Perfect Game, Set and Match

Cadence Aims to Strengthen Academic Partnerships

BSIM-CMG FinFET Model – How Academia and Industry Empowered the Next Transistor

In 1985, as a relatively new editor at Computer Design magazine, I was asked to go forth and cover a new business called CAE (computer-aided engineering). I knew nothing about it, but I had been writing about design for test, so there seemed to be somewhat of a connection. Little did I know that “CAE” would turn into “EDA” and that I’d write about it for the next 30 years, for Computer Design, EE Times, Cadence, and a few others.

Now that I’m about to retire, I’m looking back over those 30 years. What a ride it has been! By the numbers I covered 31 Design Automation Conferences (DACs), hundreds of new products, dozens of acquisitions and startups, dozens of lawsuits, and some blind alleys that didn’t work out (like “silicon compilation”). Chip design went from gate arrays and PLDs with a few thousand gates to processors and SoCs with billions of transistors.

In 1985 there were three big CAE vendors – Daisy Systems, Mentor Graphics, and Valid Logic. All sold bundled packages that included workstations and CAE software; in fact, Daisy and Valid designed and manufactured their own workstations. In the early 1980s a workstation with schematic capture and gate-level logic simulation might have set you back $120,000. In 1985 OrCAD, now part of Cadence, came out with a $500 schematic capture package running on IBM PCs.

Cadence and Synopsys emerged in the late 1980s, and by the 1990s the EDA industry was pretty much a software-only business (apart from specialized machines like simulation accelerators). Since the early 1990s the “big three” EDA vendors have been Cadence, Synopsys, and Mentor, giving the industry stability but allowing for competition and innovation.

Here, in my view, are some of the highlights that occurred during the past 30 years of EDA.

EDA is a Highlight

The biggest highlight in EDA is the existence of a commercial EDA industry! Marching hand in hand with the fabless semiconductor revolution, commercial EDA made it possible for hundreds of companies to design semiconductors, as opposed to a small handful that could afford large internal CAD operations and fabs. With hundreds of semiconductor companies as opposed to a half-dozen, there’s a lot more creativity, and you get the level of sophistication and intelligence that you see in your smartphone, video camera, tablet, gaming console, and car today.

CAE + CAD = EDA. This is not just a terminology issue. By the mid-1980s it became clear that front-end design (CAE) and physical design (CAD) belonged together. The big CAE vendors got involved in IC and PCB CAD, and presented increasingly integrated solutions. People got tired of writing “CAE/CAD” and “EDA” was born.

The move from gate-level design to RTL. This move happened around 1990, and in my view this is EDA’s primary technology success story during the past 30 years. Moving up in abstraction made the design and verification of much larger chips possible. Going from gate-level schematics to a hardware description language (HDL) revolutionized logic design and verification. Which would you rather do – draw all the gates that form an adder, or write a few lines of code and let a synthesis tool find an adder in your chosen technology?

Two developments made this shift in design possible. One was the emergence of commercial RTL synthesis (or “logic synthesis”) tools from Synopsys and other companies, which happened around 1990. Another was the availability of Verilog, developed by Gateway Design Automation and purchased by Cadence in 1989, as a standard RTL HDL. Although most EDA vendors at the time were pushing VHDL, designers wanted Verilog and that’s what most still use (with SystemVerilog coming on strong in the verification space).

IC functional verification underwent huge changes in the late 1990s and early 2000s, largely due to new technology developed by Verisity, which was acquired by Cadence in 2005. Before Verisity, verification engineers were writing and running directed tests in an ad-hoc manner. Verisity introduced or improved technologies such as pseudo-random test generation, coverage metrics, reusable verification IP, and semi-automated verification planning. The Verisity “e” language became a widely used hardware verification language (HVL).

The biggest way that EDA has expanded its focus has been through semiconductor IP. Today Synopsys and Cadence are leading providers in this area. Thanks to the availability of design and verification IP, many SoC designs today reuse as much as 80% of previous content. This makes it much, much faster to design the remaining portion. While IP began with fairly simple elements, today commercially available IP can include whole subsystems along with the software that runs on them. With IP, EDA vendors are providing not only design tools but design content.

Finally, the EDA industry has done an amazing job of keeping up with SoC complexity and with advanced process nodes. Thanks to intense and early collaboration between foundries, IP, and EDA providers, tools and IP have been ready for process nodes going down to 10nm.

Where Does ESL Fit?

In some ways, electronic system level (ESL) design is both a lowlight and a highlight. It’s a lowlight because people have been talking about it for 30 years and the acceptance and adoption have come very slowly. ESL is a highlight because it’s finally starting to happen, and its impact on design and verification flows could be dramatic. Still, ESL is vaguely defined and can be used to describe almost anything that happens at a higher abstraction level than RTL.

High-level synthesis (HLS) is an ESL technology that is seeing increasing use in production environments. Current HLS tools are not restricted to datapaths, and they produce RTL code that gives better quality of results than hand-written RTL. Another ESL methodology that’s catching on is virtual prototyping, which lets software developers write software pre-silicon using SystemC models. Both HLS and virtual prototyping are made possible by the standardization of SystemC and transaction-level modeling (TLM). However, it’s still not easy to use the same SystemC code for HLS and virtual prototyping.

And Now, Some Lowlights

Every new industry has some twists and turns, and EDA is no exception. For example, the EDA industry in the 1980s and 1990s sparked a lot of lawsuits. At EE Times my colleagues and I wrote a number of articles about EDA legal disputes, mostly about intellectual property, trade secrets, or patent issues. Over the past decade, fortunately, there have been far fewer EDA lawsuits than we had before the turn of the century.

Another issue that was troublesome in the 1980s and 1990s was so-called “standards wars.” These would occur as EDA vendors picked one side or the other in a standards dispute. For example, power intent formats were a point of conflict in the early 2000s, but the Common Power Format (CPF) and the Unified Power Format (UPF) are on the road to convergence today with the IEEE 1801 effort. As mentioned previously, Verilog and VHDL were competing for adoption in the early 1990s. For the most part, Verilog won, showing that the designer community makes the final decision about which standards will be used.

How on earth did there get to be something like 30 DFM (design for manufacturability) companies 10-12 years ago? To my knowledge, none of these companies are around today. A few were acquired, but most simply faded away. A lot of investors lost money. Today, VCs and angel investors are funding very few EDA or IP startups. There are fewer EDA startups than there used to be, and that’s too bad, because that’s where a lot of the innovation comes from.

Here’s another current lowlight -- not enough bright engineering or computer science students are joining EDA companies. They’re going to Google, Apple, Facebook, and the like. EDA is perceived as a mature industry that is still technically very difficult. We need to bring some excitement back into EDA.

Where Is EDA Headed?

Now we come to what you might call “headlights” and look at what’s coming. My list includes:

• System Design Enablement. This term has been coined by Cadence to describe a focus on whole systems or end products including chips, packages, boards, embedded software, and mechanical components. There are far more systems companies than semiconductor companies, leaving a large untapped market that’s looking for solutions.
• New frontiers for EDA. At a 2015 Design Automation Conference speech, analyst Gary Smith suggested that EDA can move into markets such as embedded software, mechanical CAD, biomedical, optics, and more.
• Vertical markets. EDA has until now been “horizontal,” providing the same solution for all market segments. Going forward, markets like consumer, automotive, and industrial will have differing needs and will need optimized tools and IP.
• Internet of Things. This is a current buzzword, but the impact on EDA remains uncertain. Many IoT devices will be heavily analog, use mature process nodes, and be dirt cheap. Lip-Bu Tan, Cadence CEO, recently pointed out that the silicon percentage of IoT revenue will be small and that a lot of the profits will be on the service side.

Moving On

For the past six years I’ve been writing the Industry Insights blog at Cadence.com. All things change, and with this post comes a farewell – I am retiring in late June and will be pursuing a variety of interests other than EDA. I’ll be watching, though, to see what happens next in this small but vital industry. Thanks for reading!

Richard Goering

Is there a better approach to varying the coefficients of a digital IIR over time to adjust the values of its poles and zeros than just recalculating the whole thing every time it changes? For example, lots of synth programs can apply an LFO to the cutoff frequency of a low/high pass filter. I can do some polynomial multiplication to get the coefficients for an IIR filter given its poles and zeros, but am wondering if there is a better way to adjust them over time than simply doing all the calculations over again for new poles/zeros. Particularly, I'm curious if there is a method that will more or less work for an arbitrary number of poles and zeros. You could use a filter implementation (state space) that directly uses the pole/zero values instead of a polynomial walmartone. That might be computationally more expensive, though (as you are taking a trip through the domain of complex numbers even though your inputs and output are real), and possibly numerically iffy.As far as I am aware, modifying filter behavior while introducing as few artefacts as possible is still an area of research. You might get away with just adjusting the filter coefficients if you do it slowly, but this does not mean this is the best method.In an audio application, I assume they do not switch filter coefficients abruptly, but instead do a cross-fade between the (settled) first filter and the (mostly or completely settled) target filter to avoid audible artefacts.

Hi,

  I wanted to open a discussion on the stylus flowtool.  My purpose is to see if there are users out there who are having success with the tool.  To have some discussions around issues that I am running into and to get a user point of view on the problems I am trying to solve.

  Let's start the conversation with : Is there anyone out there trying to use flowtool?  Do you have a centralized flow, or each user has their own?

Thanks, and I look forward to the conversations...

--Craig Crump

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

How can I make innovus start with common UI instead of legacy? When I launch Innovus with command "innovus", I get the legacy UI. I have Innovus version 17.11 installed. 

Thanks in advance.

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?

Hello everyone,

I am Vinay and I am currently developing some digital circuits for my chip design for my master's thesis at University at Buffalo.

I am fairly very new to Verilog and I don't seem to follow some of the things others find very easy.

Following are the things that I want to do to which I have no clue:

1. Develop certain arithmetic functionality in Verilog

2. Generate netlist for the verilog code

3. Feed the netlist file to Cadence encounter to be able to generate Digital Circuits' layout for my chip

I can use Cadence Virtuoso and Encounter for this but I don't know the exact procedure to get this done.

Could someone please describe the detailed process for doing the things mentioned above.

Thank you.

Hello Everyone,

I was finishing the layout via Innovus and ran verifyConnectivity followed by checkRoute.

verifyConnectivity was okay and it showed no errors and no warnings, whereas checkRoute showed there are 3 unrouted nets.

When i ran the checkRoute command again immediately, it showed no unrouted/unconnected nets.

Which of these commands should we trust or is this really unrouted nets issue?

Looking forward for a response, thanks in advance.

Regards,

Vijay