Hi,

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

-Haareeth

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

1) Indago 19.09 Better Driver Tracing and More

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

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

Interested? Check out the RAK here.

2) IXCOM MSIE: Faster Palladium Build Time

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

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

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

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

When you design a rigid-flex board, the focus is, of course, on the bend. Your design might be bend to install (stable flexion) - it will be bent only a few times while installing. Or it might be dynamic - it will be bent regularly. It's important to...(read more)

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

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

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

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

Pete Hardee 

Virtuoso Version -- IC6.1.7-64b.500.23

Cadence Spectre Version -- 17.10.515

I have a very simple circuit. Please find attached. It is basically a resistor across a port. I run a S-param simulation and can plot the S-params, but unfortunately not the Z-param or Y-param. 

/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/33/Capture_5F00_Sch.JPG

/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/33/Capture_5F00_Error.JPG

Can anyone point me in the correct direction to sort out this problem? The zpm does work in another design environment, but not in the new design environment (a new project). The virtuoso and the cadence-spectre versions match in both the project environments. I am at a loss at what to look for. 

Hi all,

I am having trouble plotting the IIp3 of gilber RF mixer I made

I have plotted 1 dB compression point using QPSS and QPAC simulation. flo=2.42GHz and frf=2.4GHz , 20 MHz IF

However my IIp3 simulation shows strange results

QPSS and QPAC setup

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?

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

  A few weeks ago, we talked about template text labels for design-specific information. There, we were focused on labels that are specific to the design as a whole: revision information, dates, authors, etc. Today, we’re looking at a diff...(read more)

Hi,

I am currently struggling with measuring the delay between two clocks with a sufficient accuracy. The reference one is a fixed-phase clock, and the other one is a squared clock resulting of a circuit (kind of PLL) synthesis.
As I need to run a large amount of Monte-Carlo simulations in transient noise, I need to improve the simulation speed, while keeping a satisfactory delay measurement accuracy (<0.1ps), more specifically at 0V-crossings of the differential clocks. So I cannot simply set a max timestep <0.1ps as it would be far too long to simulate.
To sum up, I would need a very relaxed timestep on clock up and down levels, and a very short timestep only at rise/fall transitions.

For this purpose, I wrote a Verilog-A script
- using a timmer function to accurately emulate the reference clock 0V-crossing times (and get the related times with $abstime)
- using @(cross to get the 0V-crossing times of the synthesized clock: but this is not accurate enough (I see simulation noise around 3ps in Conservative). Indeed, the "cross" event occures at the simulation time following the effective 0V-crossing time; this could be sometimes >3ps, far not enough accurate for my purpose.
- I have tried to replace the cross with the "above" function, but it hasn't changed anything, whatever the time_tol value I put (<0.1ps for instance), the result is the same as with the "cross" function and the points are larger than >>0.1ps, weirdly.

So I have decided to give up Verilog-A to measure the delay between my two clocks.
I am currently trying to use the "delay" function of the Cadence Calculator as I guess it will "extrapolate" the time between two simulation points and therefore give a more accurate measurement of the 0V-crossing events, but when I try to compute the delay difference between the synthesized clock and the reference clock, it returns "0".

...

Could you please give me hints to dramatically improve my 0V-crossing time measurements while relaxing the simulation time?
- either by helping me in writing a more suitable Verilog-A script
- or by helping me in using the "delay" function of the calculator
- or maybe by providing me a "magic" Skill function?
Using AMS+Multithread simulator...

Thanks a lot in advance for your help and best regards.

Hello,

I find a strange issue when using design variable -> right-click -> copy from cellview in assembler. Cadence version is IC618-64b. 500.9

In fact, I set the value of variable (e.g., AAA = 100), then after I right-click -> copy from cellview, AAA's is updated to other value. In my opinion "copy from cellview" should only update the missing variable to the list, but not change any variable value. 

Is there any mechanism could change variable value when using "copy from cellview"?

Thanks

Hi,

This question is related to the constraint measurement criteria used by the Liberate inside view. I am trying to characterize a specific D flip-flop for low voltage operation (0.6V) using Cadence Liberate (V16). 

When the "define_arcs" are not explicitly specified in the settings for the circuit (but the input/outputs are indeed correct in define_cell), the inside view seems to probe an internal node (i.e. master latch output)  for constraint measurements instead of the Q output of the flip flop. So to force the tool to probe Q output I added following coder in constraint arcs :

# constraint arcs from CK => D
define_arc
-type hold
-vector {RRx}
-related_pin CP
-pin D
-probe Q
DFFXXX

define_arc
-type hold
-vector {RFx}
-related_pin CP
-pin D
-probe Q
DFFXXX

define_arc
-type setup
-vector {RRx}
-related_pin CP
-pin D
-probe Q
DFFXXX

define_arc
-type setup
-vector {RFx}
-related_pin CP
-pin D
-probe Q
DFFXXX

with -probe Q liberate identifies Q as the output, but uses Glitch-Peak criteria instead of delay degradation method. So what could be the exact reason for this unintended behavior ? In my external (spectre) spice simulation, the Flip-Flop works well and it does not show any issues in the output delay degradation when the input sweeps.

Thanks

Anuradha

Cadence Liberate Trio Characterization Suite, ARM-based Graviton Processors, and Amazon Web Services (AWS) Cloud have joined forces to cater to the High-Performance Computing, Machine Learning/Artificial Intelligence, and Big Data Analytics sectors. (read more)

The complexity and size of mixed-signal designs in wireless, power management, automotive, and other fast growing applications requires continued advancements in a mixed-signal verification methodology. An SoC, in these fast growing applications, incorporates a large number of analog and mixed-signal (AMS) blocks/IPs, some acquired from IP providers, some designed, often concurrently. AMS IP must be verified independently, but this is not sufficient to ensure an SoC will function properly and all scenarios of interaction among many different AMS IP blocks at full chip / SoC level must be verified thoroughly. To reduce an overall verification cycle, AMS IP and SoC verification teams must work in parallel from early stages of the design. Easier said than done! We will outline a methodology than can help.

AMS designers verify their IP meets required specifications by running a testbench they develop for standalone / out of-context verification. Typically, an AMS IP as analog-centric, hierarchal design in schematic, composed of blocks represented by transistor, HDL and behavioral description verified in Virtuoso® Analog Design Environment (ADE) using Spectre AMS Designer simulation. An SoC verification team typically uses UVM SystemVerilog testbech at full chip level where the AMS IP is represented with a simple digital or real number model running Xcelium /DMS simulation from the command line.

Ideally, AMS designers should also verify AMS IP function properly in the context of full-chip integration, but reproducing an often complex UVM SystemVerilog testbench and bringing over top-level design description to an analog-centric environment is not a simple task.

Last year, Cadence partnered with Infineon on a project with a goal to automate the reuse of a top-level testbench in AMS verification. The automation enabled AMS verification engineers to automatically configure setup for verification runs by assembling all necessary options and files from the AMS IP Virtuoso GUI and digital SoC top-level command line configurations. The benefits of this method were:

• AMS verification engineers did not need to re-create complex stimuli representing interaction of their IP at the top level
• Top-level verification stays external to the AMS IP verification environment and continues to be managed by the SoC verification team, but can be reused by the AMS IP team without manual overhead
• AMS IP is verified in-context and any inconsistencies are detected earlier in the verification process
• Improved productivity and overall verification time

For more details, please see Infineon’s CDNLlive presentation.

Verification is the top challenge in mixed-signal design. Bringing analog and digital domains together into unified verification planning, simulating, and debugging is a challenging task for rapidly increasing size and complexity of mixed-signal designs. To more completely verify functionality and performance of a mixed-signal SoC and its AMS IP blocks used to build it, verification teams use simulations at transistor, analog behavioral and real-number model (RNM) and RTL levels, and combination of these.

In recent years, RNM and simulation is being adopted for functional verification by many, due to advantages it offers including simpler modeling requirements and much faster simulation speed (compared to a traditional analog behavioral models like Verilog-A or VHDL-AMS). Verilog-AMS with its wreal continue to be popular choice. Standardization of real number extensions in SystemVerilog (SV) made SV-RNM an even more attractive choice for MS SoC verification.

Verilog-AMS/wreal is scalar real type. SV-RNM offers a powerful ability to define complex data types, providing a user-defined structure (record) to describe the net value. In a typical design, most analog nodes can be modeled using a single value for passing a voltage (or current) from one module to another. The ability to pass multiple values over a net can be very powerful when, for example, the impedance load impact on an analog signal needs to be modeled. Here is an example of a user-defined net (UDN) structure that holds voltage, current, and resistance values:

When there are multiple drives on a single net, the simulator will need a resolution function to determine the final net value. When the net is just defined as a single real value, common resolution functions such as min, max, average, and sum are built into the simulator.  But definition of more complex structures for the net also requires the user to provide appropriate resolution functions for them. Here is an example of a net with three drivers modeled using the above defined structural elements (a voltage source with series resistance, a resistive load, and a current source):

To properly solve for the resulting output voltage, the resolution function for this net needs to perform Norton conversion of the elements, sum their currents and conductances, and then calculate the resolved output voltage as the sum of currents divided by sum of conductances.

With some basic understanding of circuit theory, engineers can use SV-RNM UDN capability to model electrical behavior of many different circuits. While it is primarily defined to describe source/load impedance interactions, its use can be extended to include systems including capacitors, switching circuits, RC interconnect, charge pumps, power regulators, and others. Although this approach extends the scope of functional verification, it is not a replacement for transistor-level simulation when accuracy, performance verification, or silicon correlation are required:  It simply provides an efficient solution for discretely modeling small analog networks (one to several nodes).  Mixed-signal simulation with an analog solver is still the best solution when large nonlinear networks must be evaluated.

Cadence provides a tutorial on EEnet usage as well as the package (EEnet.pkg) with UDN definitions and resolution functions and modeling examples. To learn more, please login to your Cadence account to access the tutorial.

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from Ambedkarnagar on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

ઉબર ડ્રાઇવરના વાયરલ વીડિયોને 50 હજારથી વ્યૂ મળી ચૂક્યા છે, આ કારણે આવી રહ્યો છે પસંદ

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from Betul on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from Beed on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from Gulberga on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from Coochbehar on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from Begusarai on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

This Metasploit module exploits a type confusion vulnerability found in the ActiveX component of Adobe Flash Player. This vulnerability was found exploited in the wild in November 2013. This Metasploit module has been tested successfully on IE 6 to IE 10 with Flash 11.7, 11.8 and 11.9 prior to 11.9.900.170 over Windows XP SP3 and Windows 7 SP1.

This Metasploit module exploits a vulnerability found in the ActiveX component of Adobe Flash Player before 12.0.0.43. By supplying a specially crafted swf file it is possible to trigger an integer underflow in several avm2 instructions, which can be turned into remote code execution under the context of the user, as exploited in the wild in February 2014. This Metasploit module has been tested successfully with Adobe Flash Player 11.7.700.202 on Windows XP SP3, Windows 7 SP1 and Adobe Flash Player 11.3.372.94 on Windows 8 even when it includes rop chains for several Flash 11 versions, as exploited in the wild.

Adobe Flash Active-X plugin version 28.0.0.137 remote code execution proof of concept exploit.