1 Dominican Peso = 0.2591 Estonian Kroon

Last week the weather disrupted the Indians as they opened the Outdoor Season at Pittsburg State University.  Thunderstorms and lightning prevented numerous races and events from running on schedule.  For many, the meet yesterday was their opportunity to finally compete.

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 5.0047 Seychellois Rupee

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 46.54 Pakistani Rupee

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 35.2544 Nepalese Rupee

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 11.5761 Mauritian Rupee

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 54.3724 Sri Lanka Rupee

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 22.0104 Indian Rupee

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 4.1577 Estonian Kroon

1 Brunei Dollar = 12.1479 Seychellois Rupee

1 Brunei Dollar = 112.9658 Pakistani Rupee

1 Brunei Dollar = 85.5724 Nepalese Rupee

1 Brunei Dollar = 28.0984 Mauritian Rupee

1 Brunei Dollar = 131.9771 Sri Lanka Rupee

1 Brunei Dollar = 53.4254 Indian Rupee

1 Brunei Dollar = 10.0919 Estonian Kroon

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/

PCIe has been widely adopted in the electronics industry since its first debut in 2003 (PCIe 1.0 standard release) for wide breach of applications, from Data Center Server, Networking, to Mobile, AI/ML, Automotive, IoT, and many others…. It’s a versatile, high-performance, robust, mature interconnect standard with full “backward compatibility” (e.g., a PCIe 3.0 device can still function well in a PCIe 4.0 system) which enables a solid and strong PCIe eco-system in the industry.  While the market, so as the users,  are enjoying the systems, e.g., desktop/laptop, powered (or to be more specific: “bridged”) by PCIe 3.0 since 2010, the industry is pushing hard for the PCIe 4.0 eco-system enablement. 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.

On the standard evolution front, the official PCIe 5.0 came out in May 2019, doubling the data rate to 32GT/s from 16GT/s in PCIe 4.0. The PCIe 6.0 standard will be released in 2021 based on the announcement made by PCI-SIG in June’19 with the goal to further double the data rate to 64GT/s with incorporating the PAM4 coding.

PCIe Protocol Evolution

Having said that, is the latest generation of PCIe always desired?  

My answer would be positive. Just like car maker/enthusiast has kept pursuing faster car in the history, there is no doubt that these speed enhancements/upgrades in the electronic world certainly provide a tremendous benefit for especially those applications craving the most throughput, such as Data center, HPC, Networking, Cloud and AI applications.   

But, does every application have to opt for the fastest speed (bandwidth)? My view would be leaning toward “Not really”. Just like we don’t need a 3-second sport car (meaning 0-60mph acceleration < 3s) for daily commute though it would certainly spice some driving fun on the road, but it may not be "the best fit" for most of commuters.

There are applications still well satisfied with PCIe 3.0 (or even older PCIe 2.0) for its best performance and cost balance.  Those applications include, but not limit to, IoT/consumer, Edge AI, SSD (non-enterprise),…etc. They typically need to make trade-off in between the cost, power consumption (especially battery powered), flexibility on changing product features, and time-to-market (TTM). To address such type of market needs, Cadence also offers an PPA (Performance, Power, Area) optimized PCIe 3.0 solution in addition to its high-performance PCIe 4.0 product line.

Cadence PCIe 3.0 PHY Solution (with Multi-Protocol Multi-Link feature)

With leveraging the multi-protocol SerDes implementation, the same Cadence PHY IP support multi-protocol and multi-link operation. Such a multi-protocol enabled PHY gives the SoC developers the optimum flexibility to integrate multiple commonly used interface protocols (e.g., PCIe 3.0 + USB 3.0) with using only a single PHY design.  This would largely save the product development time (faster TTM), reduce the risk of using multiple different PHY instances (for different protocol needs), and with the configurability to enable different product features/protocols.

Some people might say PCIe 3.0 era has gone. I was not quite yet being convinced as I still see its potential to shine a lot of market use cases. What do you think?

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: PCIe Gen4: It’s Official, We’re Compliant
• Blog: The PCIe 4.0 Era Continues at PCI-SIG Developers Conference 2016
• Blog: Cadence PCIe Solutions: Configurable, Compliant, and Low Power

Who used to be known as Dileep Kumar, and is now married to Saira Banu?

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

This character’s creator described him as “insufferable”, and called him a “detestable, bombastic, tiresome, ego-centric little creep”. On August 6 1975, the New York Times carried his obituary, the only time it has thus honoured a fictional character. Who?

Workoutable © 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

As a leading venture capitalist in the electronics technology, as well as CEO of Cadence, Lip-Bu Tan has unique insights into ongoing changes that will impact EDA providers and users. Tan shared some of those insights in a “fireside chat” with Ed Sperling, editor in chief of Semiconductor Engineering, at the Design Automation Conference (DAC 2015) on June 9.

Topics of this discussion included industry consolidation, the need for more talent and more startups, Internet of Things (IoT) opportunities and challenges, the shift from ICs to full product development, and the challenges of advanced nodes. Following are some excerpts from this conversation, held at the DAC Pavilion theater on the exhibit floor.

Ed Sperling (left) and Lip-Bu Tan (right) discuss trends in semiconductors and EDA

Q: As you look out over the semiconductor and EDA industries these days, what worries you most?

Tan: At the top of my list is all the consolidation that is going on. Secondly, chip design complexity is increasing substantially. Time-to-market pressure is growing and advanced nodes have challenges.

The other thing I worry about is that we need to have more startups. There’s a lot of innovation that needs to happen. And this industry needs more top talent. At Cadence, we have a program to recruit over 10% of new hires every year from college graduates. We need new blood and new ideas.

Q: EDA vendors were acquiring companies for many years, but now the startups are pretty much gone. Where does the next wave of innovation come from?

Tan: I’ve been an EDA CEO for the last seven years and I really enjoy it because so much innovation is needed. System providers have very big challenges and very different needs. You have to find the opportunities and go out and provide the solutions.

The opportunities are not just in basic tools. Massive parallelism is critical, and the power challenge is huge. Time to market is critical, and for the IoT companies, cost is going to be critical. If you want to take on some good engineering challenges, this is the most exciting time.

Q: You live two lives—you’re a CEO but you’re also an investor. Where are the investments going these days and where are we likely to see new startups?

Tan: Clearly everybody is chasing the IoT. There is a lot of opportunity in the cloud, in the data center. Also, I’m a big believer in video, so I back companies that are video related. A big area is automotive. ADAS [Advanced Driver Assistance Systems] is a tremendous opportunity.

These companies can help us understand how the industry is transforming, and then we can provide solutions, either in terms of IP, tools, or the PCB. Then we need to connect from the system level down to semiconductors. I think it’s a different way to design.

Q: What happens as we start moving from companies looking to design a semiconductor to system companies who are doing things from the perspective that we have this purpose for our software?

Tan: We are extending from EDA to what we call system design enablement, and we are becoming more application driven. The application at the system level will drive the silicon design. We need to help companies look at the whole system including the power envelope and signal integrity. You don’t want to be in a position where you design a chip all the way to fabrication and then find the power is too high.

We help the customers with hardware/software co-design and co-verification. We have a design suite and a verification suite that can provide customers with high-level abstractions, as well as verify IP blocks at the system level. Then we can break things down to the component level with system constraints in mind, and drive power-aware, system-aware design.

We are starting to move into vertical markets. For example, medical is a tremendous opportunity.

Q: How does this approach change what you provide to customers?

Tan: Every year I spend time meeting with customers. I think it is very important to understand what they are trying to design, and it is also important to know the customer’s customer requirements. We might say, “Wait a minute, for this design you may want to think about power or the library you’re using.” We help them understand what foundry they should use and what process they should use. They don’t view me as a vendor—they view me as a partner.

We also work very closely with our IP and foundry partners. We work as one team—the ultimate goal is customer success.

Q: Is everybody going to say, FinFETs are beautiful, we’re going to go down to 10nm or 7nm—or is it a smaller number of companies who will continue down that path?

Tan: Some of the analog/mixed-signal companies don’t need to go that far. We love those customers—we have close to 50% of that business. But we also have customers in the graphics or processor area who are really pushing the envelope, and need to be in 16nm, 14nm, or 10nm. We work very closely with those guys to make sure they can go into FinFETs.

We always want to work with the customer to make sure they have a first-time silicon success. If you have to do a re-spin, you miss the opportunity and it’s very costly.

Q: There’s a new market that is starting to explode—IoT. How real is that world to you? Everyone talks about large numbers, but is it showing up in terms of tools?

Tan: Everybody is talking about huge profits, but a lot of the time I think it is just connecting old devices that you have. Billions of units, absolutely yes, but if you look close enough the silicon percentage of that revenue is very tiny. A lot of the profit is on the service side. So you really need to look at the service killer app you are trying to provide.

What’s most important to us in the IoT market is the IP business. That’s why we bought Tensilica—it’s programmable, so you can find the killer app more quickly. The other challenges are time to market, low power, and low cost.

Q: Where is system design enablement going? Does it expand outside the traditional market for EDA?

Tan: It’s not just about tools. IP is now 11% of our revenue. At the PCB level, we acquired a company called Sigrity, and through that we are able to drive system analysis for power, signal integrity, and thermal. And then we look at some of the verticals and provide modeling all the way from the system level to the component level. We make sure that we provide a solution to the end customer, rather than something piecemeal.

Q: What do you think DAC will look like in five years?

Tan: It’s getting smaller. We need to see more startups and innovative IP solutions. I saw a few here this year, and that’s good. We need to encourage small startups.

Q: Where do we get the people to pull this off? I don’t see too many people coming into EDA.

Tan: I talk to a lot of university students, and I tell them that this small industry is a gold mine. A lot of innovation is needed. We need them to come in [to EDA] rather than join Google or Facebook. Those are great companies, but there is a lot of fundamental physical innovation we need.

Richard Goering

Related Blog Posts

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

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

- Q&A with Nimish Modi: Going Beyond Traditional EDA

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

Are they basically the same thing? I am trying to get as much experience with Allegro since a lot of jobs I am looking at right now are asking for Cadence Allegro experience (I wish they asked for Altium experience...). I currently have access to PCB Editor, but I don't want to commit to learning Editor if Allegro is completely different. Also walmart one, are the Cadence Allegro courses worth it? I won't be paying for it and if it's worth it, I figure I might as well use the opportunity to say I know how to use two complex CAD tools.

Hello,

I created a floorplan view in Virtuoso ( it contains pins and blockages). I am trying to run PnR in Innovus for floorplan created in Virtuoso. I used  set vars(oa_fp)    "Library_name cell_name view_name"   to read view from virtuoso. I am able to see pins in Innovus but not the blockages. Can i know how do i get the blockages created in virtuoso to Innovus.

Regards,
Amuu 

Hi,

I recently encountered a probelm where scrolling with the mouse wheel and [i][o] button does not zoom in or out both in "Allegro orcad capture CIS 17.2.2016 " .

When I scroll the mouse wheel or [i][o] button, nothing is done.

The thing is that it worked fine until yesterday.

Anyone has an idea?

Thanks,

Dung.

For a netlist vs. netlist LEC flow we have to solve the following problem:

- in the RTL code we replicate a large array of N x M all-identical hard-macros, let call them MACRO_A

- MACRO_A is pre-assembled in Innovus and contains digital parts and analog parts (bottom-up hierarchical flow)

- at top-level (full-chip) we instantiate this array of all-identical macros

- in the top-level place-and-route flow we perform ecoChangeCell to remaster the top row of this array with MACRO_B

- MACRO_B is just a copy of the original MACRO_A cell containing same pins position, same internal digital functionality and also same digital layout, only slight differences in one analog block inside the macro

- MACRO_A and MACRO_B have the same .lib file generated with the do_extract_model command at the end of the Innovus flow, they only differ in the name of the macro

- when performing post-synthesis netlist vs post-place-and-route we load .lib files of both macros in Conformal LEC

- the LEC flow fails because Conformal LEC sees only MACRO_A instantiated in the post-synthesis netlist and both MACRO_A and MACRO_B in the post-palce-and-route netlist

Since both digital functionality and STD cells layout are the same between MACRO_A and MACRO_B we don't want to keep track of this difference already at RTL stage, we just want to perform this ECO change in place-and-route and force Conformal to assume equivalence between MACRO_A and MACRO_B .

Basically what I'm searching for is something similar to the add_instance_equivalences Conformal command but that works between Golden and Revised designs on cell primitives/black-boxes .

Is this flow supported ?

Thanks in advance

Luca

RF Enthusiasts, Come connect with Cadence RF experts and discover the latest advances in Cadence RF technologies, including Spectre RF at the IEEE International Microwave Symposium (IMS) 2014. This year, IMS will be held in Tampa, Florida. Cadence...(read more)

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

As the stakes for winning server segment market share grow ever higher an increasing number of companies are seeking to grasp the latest Holy Grail of multi-chip coherence. The approach promises to better enable applications such as machine learning...(read more)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 1:  Comprehensive Low-Power Verification 

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

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

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

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

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

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

=Adam "The Jouler" Sherer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qi Wang

There is no better way other than a self-help training kit -- (rapid adoption kit, or RAK) -- to demonstrate the Incisive Enterprise Simulator's IEEE 1801 / UPF low-power features and its usage. The features include:

• Unique SimVision debugging 
• Patent-pending power supply network visualization and debugging
• Tcl extensions for LP debugging
• Support for Liberty file power description
• Standby mode support
• Support for Verilog, VHDL, and mixed language
• Automatic understanding of complex feedthroughs
• Replay of initial blocks
• ‘x' corruption for integers and enumerated types
• Automatic understanding of loop variables
• Automatic support for analog interconnections

Mickey Rodriguez, AVS Staff Solutions Engineer has developed a low power UPF-based RAK, which is now available on Cadence Online Support for you to download.

• This rapid adoption kit illustrates Incisive Enterprise Simulator (IES) support for the IEEE 1801 power intent standard. 

Patent-Pending Power Supply Network Browser. (Only available with the LP option to IES)

• In addition to an overview of IES features, SimVision and Tcl debug features, a lab is provided to give the user an opportunity to try these out.

The complete RAK and associated overview presentation can be downloaded from our SoC and Functional Verification RAK page:

We are covering the following technologies through our RAKs at this moment:

Synthesis, Test and Verification flow
Encounter Digital Implementation (EDI) System and Sign-off Flow
Virtuoso Custom IC and Sign-off Flow
Silicon-Package-Board Design
Verification IP
SOC and IP level Functional Verification
System level verification and validation with Palladium XP

Please visit https://support.cadence.com/raks to download your copy of RAK.

We will continue to provide self-help content on Cadence Online Support, your 24/7 partner for learning more about Cadence tools, technologies, and methodologies as well as getting help in resolving issues related to Cadence software. If you are signed up for e-mail notifications, you're likely to notice new solutions, application notes (technical papers), videos, manuals, etc.

Note: To access the above documents, click a link and use your Cadence credentials to log on to the Cadence Online Support https://support.cadence.com/ website.

Happy Learning!

Sumeet Aggarwal and Adam Sherer

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Adam "The Jouler" Sherer

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

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

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

Just another happy Cadence low-power verification user!

Regards,

 Adam "The Jouler" Sherer 

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

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

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

Just another happy Cadence low-power verification user!

Regards,

Adam "The Jouler" Sherer  

Hi All,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can someone please help me?

Thanks in advance! 

hi everyone, 

i'm trying to create a netlist for aging simulation. i would like to simulate how power, Gain and PAE (efficiency) are inlfuenced after 3 hours

i would be grateful if someone can correct my syntax in the netlist since i'm trying to make a sweep HB  simulation where the input power is the parameter.

i did it without any error for the sp (S parameters)  simulation.

you can see the images for both sp and hb simulation netlists. (from left to right: sp aging netlist; hb aging netlist)

i will be grateful if someone can provide me some syntax advices.

thanks,

best regards

Other tools allow a sanity check of placement density vs available board space.  There is an older post "Skill code to evaluate all components area (Accumulative Place bound area)"  (9 years ago) that has a couple of examples that no longer work or expired.

This would be useful to provide feedback to schismatic and project managers regarding the component density on the PCB and how it will affect the routing abilities.  Thermal considerations can be evaluated as well 

Has anyone attempted this or still being done externally in spread sheets?

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

In our observations

Virtuoso:

>>> warn("Hello")

*WARNING* Hello

Allegro:

>>> warn("Hello")

*WARNING* Hello

But when we capture the warning:

Virtuoso:

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

"Hello"

Allegro:

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

"*WARNING* Hello"

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

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

This is the 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?

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

Hi All,

I want to capture the transition values of certain nodes in a design (i.e. a digital multiplier built with standard cells) and I use probe -screen command to dump the nodal values in text format. Since I only need to capture these values in the ideal situation, I use -nospecify switch with the xrun command :

xrun -clean R16FA_2009.v R4BE_Test.v tb_stop16.v -v stdlib_verilog_models-sdf30.v -access +rwc -mess -timescale 1ns/1ps -nospecify -gui &

and the probe command goes like this : 

probe -screen tb_stop16.mul16.test.L1 -redirect probe1.txt -format "%T L1 Value: %b"  //Here L1 is an array of wires

Although I expect a single transition at a given time instance, I see multiple transitions occurring in the dumped probe1.txt file. i.e. 

Time: 300 PS : 48'bxx0xx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0xx0xx11x
Time: 300 PS : 48'b000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000110
Time: 4 NS : 48'b001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100
Time: 4 NS : 48'b011000000010111111111001000000110011011001010101
Time: 8 NS : 48'b010000000010111111111001000000110011011001010101
Time: 8 NS : 48'b110100101100000110000111100001010010111001011100
Time: 12 NS : 48'b010000110011100010001110011100010101010001010101
Time: 16 NS : 48'b000010000010000000000000000010000000010010010100
Time: 20 NS : 48'b000011000010000000000000000010000000010010010100
Time: 20 NS : 48'b000001001001001001011011000010001010011010010100

From the waveform, it appears that only the second value (bold)  of the time instance is correct. Since the simulation is without annotated delays, there are no intermediate transitions in the waveform. How could this be possible ?

Thanks in advance

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

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

(Note that we're not using vManager)

Thanks,

Avidan