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.

“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 Texas Hold’em Poker, which hand is known as ‘six tits’?

Workoutable © 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 21st installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

When all political parties agree on something, you know you might have a problem. Giriraj Singh, a minister in Narendra Modi’s new cabinet, tweeted this week that our population control law should become a “movement.” This is something that would find bipartisan support – we are taught from school onwards that India’s population is a big problem, and we need to control it.

This is wrong. Contrary to popular belief, our population is not a problem. It is our greatest strength.

The notion that we should worry about a growing population is an intuitive one. The world has limited resources. People keep increasing. Something’s gotta give.

Robert Malthus made just this point in his 1798 book, An Essay on the Principle of Population. He was worried that our population would grow exponentially while resources would grow arithmetically. As more people entered the workforce, wages would fall and goods would become scarce. Calamity was inevitable.

Malthus’s rationale was so influential that this mode of thinking was soon called ‘Malthusian.’ (It is a pejorative today.) A 20th-century follower of his, Harrison Brown, came up with one of my favourite images on this subject, arguing that a growing population would lead to the earth being “covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots.”

Another Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich, published a book called The Population Bomb in 1968, which began with the stirring lines, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Ehrlich was, as you’d guess, a big supporter of India’s coercive family planning programs. ““I don’t see,” he wrote, “how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980.”

None of these fears have come true. A 2007 study by Nicholas Eberstadt called ‘Too Many People?’ found no correlation between population density and poverty. The greater the density of people, the more you’d expect them to fight for resources – and yet, Monaco, which has 40 times the population density of Bangladesh, is doing well for itself. So is Bahrain, which has three times the population density of India.

Not only does population not cause poverty, it makes us more prosperous. The economist Julian Simon pointed out in a 1981 book that through history, whenever there has been a spurt in population, it has coincided with a spurt in productivity. Such as, for example, between Malthus’s time and now. There were around a billion people on earth in 1798, and there are around 7.7 billion today. As you read these words, consider that you are better off than the richest person on the planet then.

Why is this? The answer lies in the title of Simon’s book: The Ultimate Resource. When we speak of resources, we forget that human beings are the finest resource of all. There is no limit to our ingenuity. And we interact with each other in positive-sum ways – every voluntary interactions leaves both people better off, and the amount of value in the world goes up. This is why we want to be part of economic networks that are as large, and as dense, as possible. This is why most people migrate to cities rather than away from them – and why cities are so much richer than towns or villages.

If Malthusians were right, essential commodities like wheat, maize and rice would become relatively scarcer over time, and thus more expensive – but they have actually become much cheaper in real terms. This is thanks to the productivity and creativity of humans, who, in Eberstadt’s words, are “in practice always renewable and in theory entirely inexhaustible.”

The error made by Malthus, Brown and Ehrlich is the same error that our politicians make today, and not just in the context of population: zero-sum thinking. If our population grows and resources stays the same, of course there will be scarcity. But this is never the case. All we need to do to learn this lesson is look at our cities!

This mistaken thinking has had savage humanitarian consequences in India. Think of the unborn millions over the decades because of our brutal family planning policies. How many Tendulkars, Rahmans and Satyajit Rays have we lost? Think of the immoral coercion still carried out on poor people across the country. And finally, think of the condescension of our politicians, asserting that people are India’s problem – but always other people, never themselves.

This arrogance is India’s greatest problem, not our people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A screen shot is attached for reference.

Thanks for any help

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

A screen shot is attached for reference.

Thanks for any help

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

I have a set of pads for use in a design and I was wondering which attributes should I put on each pin.

Let's say it has the following pins:

   - inh_vdd, inh_vss, CORE, PAD where the first two are for the pad rings, the CORE pin is to use in the die and the PAD pin is the bonding pad.

I guess CORE would need:

   CLASS CORE

   USE POWER  (or GROUND if this happened to be a ground pad)

What about the inh_vdd and inh_vss? Theyu would not have the CLASS CORE, but would I use USE POWER/GROUND on them too?

   USE POWER (or GROUND)

   SHAPE ABUTMENT

And the bonding pad? Should I put it in the LEF? Or would that cause confusion to innovus or Voltus? And what attributed would it use? USE POWER/GROUND only?

Do I need anything in the LEF to indicate that the pin CORE and the pin PAD are essentially the same thing, just different places on the same power pad?

Hi,

When I import the top level Verilog file generated by Genus into Virtuoso, the power pins are left unconnected. I tried different configurations in "Global Net Options" tab. However, nothing changed. 

The cell is imported with three views, namely functional, schematic, and symbol. In www krogerfeedback com functional view everything looks OK, that is the top level Verilog file. In schematic, I can see the digital cells but VDD and VSS pins of the blocks are not connected. In the symbol view there are no pins for VDD and VSS. 

On top, we are trying to implement a digital block into Virtuoso. The technology is TSMC 65nm. On Genus and Innovus, everything goes straight and layout is generated successfully.

Thanks.

Hi,

There was tool available with INCISIV called imc to view the coverage reports.

The question is: How can we view the code coverage reports generated with XCELIUM? I think imc is not available with XCELIUM?

Thanks in advance.

When I enable clock gating in my synthesis flow (using Genus 18.15), my simulation (using Xcelium) on the post-synthesis netlist fails. The simulation succeeds pre-synthesis and also if I remove clock-gating in the design. I use set_db  lp_insert_clock_gating true to enable clock gating during synthesis. I printed out some of the signals from the netlist and can see where it fails (it incorrectly writes a register). However, I am not sure how to solve this issue or what I should be looking for. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

hi all, 

          what wrong with the error "param_write.log does not exist" when i export parameters in allegro 16.6 pcb board.

          someone can provide suggestions, thanks.

best regards.

The following is valid SystemVerilog:

module mmio
#(parameter PORTS=2,
parameter ADDR_WIDTH=30)
(input logic[ADDR_WIDTH-1:0] addr[PORTS],
output logic ben[PORTS], // Bus enable
output logic men[PORTS]); // Memory enable

always_comb begin
for(int i = 0; i < PORTS; i++) begin
ben[i] = addr[i] >= 'h20080004 && addr[i] < 'h200c0000;
men[i] = ~ben[i];
end
end

endmodule : mmio

And if you instantiate it:

mmio #(1, 30) MMIO(.addr('{scalar_addr}),
.ben('{ben}),
.men('{men}));

Genus returns an error: "Could not synthesize non-constant range values. [CDFG-231] [elaborate]" Is this just not possible in Genus or could it be caused by something else?

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)

Last year, I wrote a blog post entitled Modeling Oscillators with Arbitrary Phase Noise Profiles . We now have an easier way to do this. Starting in MMSIM 13.1 , you can specify the phase noise as an instance parameter in Spectre sources, including...(read more)

I have a SKILL script that executes the callback of a menu item, and depends on first redefining an environment variable. 

When a user interrupts the script with ctrl-C, the script cannot finish to set the environment variable back to its default value.

How can I write the script in a way that handles a user interrupt to reset the changed environment variable after the interrupt?

Here we conclude the blog series and highlight the results of Mediatek 's use of Cadence Perspec™ System Verifier for their SoC level verification. In case you missed it, Part 1 of the blog is here , and Part 2 of the blog is here . One of their key...(read more)

It’s now official: Perspec System Verifier is rated the #1 product in the #1 category of Portable Stimulus, according to the 2017 EDA User Survey published on Deepchip.com. There were 33 user responses in favor of Perspec as the #1 tool, and dr...(read more)

It’s always good to hear what real users think of products. Here is a very detailed review (~4000 words) by an Anonymous user, nick named Ant-Man (from the movie). Overall it’s a very strong endorsement of Perspec, and summarize...(read more)

The Cadence® Connections® Verification Program brings together a worldwide network of services, training, and IP development experts that support Cadence verification solutions. The program members help customer accelerate the adoption of new...(read more)

The Accellera Portable Stimulus Working Group met at the DVCon 2018 to move the process forward towards ratification. While we can't predict exactly when it will be ratified, the goal is now more clearly in sight! Cadence booth was busy with a lo...(read more)

CDNLive is a user conference, and verification is one of the largest categories of content with multiple tracks covering multiple days. Portable stimulus is one of the hottest new areas in verification, and continues to be popular in all venues. At l...(read more)

Cadence pulled a fast one at DAC 2018, almost like a bait and switch. We advertised a hands-on workshop to learn about Accellera Portable Stimulus Specification (PSS) v1.0. But we made participants compete head to head, for prizes, and their pride! T...(read more)

Hi, I want to add values to components in my SiP design such as 1nF or 15nH. There is already in existence a COMP_VALUE property reserved for this as shown during BOM generation. This property is not visible under the Edit/Properties dialog for component or symbol find filters. We have already created user properties called COMP_MFG and COMP_MFG_PN that it editable at a component level. When we try to add COMP_VALUE it is reported as a reserved name in Cadence but this name is not listed in the properties dialog. Is there a way to turn on the visibility and editablility of this or other hidden reserved Cadence property names? How can I assign a string value to the COMP_VALUE property?

Thanks

In this week’s Whiteboard Wednesdays video, Dave Apte discusses how to create the lowest power design possible by using architectural exploration and Cadence’s Stratus HLS solution....

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

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

All PCB designers know the importance of proper power delivery for successful board design. Integrated circuits need the power to turn on, and ICs with marginal power delivery will not operate reliably. Since power planes can...(read more)

All engineers can enhance their mixed-signal low-power structural verification productivity by learning while doing with a PIEA RAK (Power Intent Export Assistant Rapid Adoption Kit). They can verify the mixed-signal chip by a generating macromodel for their analog block automatically, and run it through Conformal Low Power (CLP) to perform a low power structural check.  

The power structure integrity of a mixed-signal, low-power block is verified via Conformal Low Power integrated into the Virtuoso Schematic Editor Power Intent Export Assistant (VSE-PIEA). Here is the flow.

Applying the flow iteratively from lower to higher levels can verify the power structure.

Cadence customers can learn more in a Rapid Adoption Kit (RAK) titled IC 6.1.5 Virtuoso Schematic Editor XL PIEA, Conformal Low Power: Mixed-Signal Low Power Structural Verification.

• To read the overview presentation, click on following link: PIEA Overview
• To download this PIEA RAK click on following link: PIEA RAK Download

The RAK includes Rapid Adoption Kit with demo design (instructions are provided on how to setup the user environment). It Introduces the Power Intent Export Assistant (PIEA) feature that has been implemented in the Virtuoso IC615 release.  The power intent extracted is then verified by calling Conformal Low Power (CLP) inside the Virtuoso environment.

• Last Update: 11/15/2012.
• Validated with IC 6.1.5 and CLP 11.1

The RAK uses a sample test case to go through PIEA + CLP flow as follows:

• Setup for PIEA
• Perform power intent extraction
• CPF Import: It is recommended to Import macro CPF, as oppose to designing CPF for sub-blocks. If you choose to import design CPF files please make sure the design CPF file has power domain information for all the top level boundary ports
• Generate macro CPF and design CPF
• Perform low power verification by running CLP

It is also recommended to go through older RAKs as prerequisites.

• Conformal Low Power, RTL Compiler and Incisive: Low Power Verification for Beginners
• Conformal Low Power: CPF Macro Models
• Conformal Low Power and RTL Compiler: Low Power Verification for Advanced Users

To access all these RAKs, visit our RAK Home Page to access Synthesis, Test and Verification flow

Note: To access above docs, use your Cadence credentials to logon to the Cadence Online Support (COS) web site. Cadence Online Support website https://support.cadence.com/ is your 24/7 partner for getting help and resolving issues related to Cadence software. If you are signed up for e-mail notifications, you can receive new solutions, Application Notes (Technical Papers), Videos, Manuals, and more.

You can send us your feedback by adding a comment below or using the feedback box on Cadence Online Support.

Sumeet Aggarwal

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 

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.  :-) )

DAC is right around the corner! On the demo floor at Cadence® Booth #2214, we will demonstrate how to use the Cadence mixed-signal and low-power solution to design, verify, and implement a microcontroller-based mixed-signal design. The demo design architecture is very similar to practical designs of many applications like power management ICs, automotive controllers, and the Internet of Things (IoT). Cadene tools demonstrated in this design include Virtuoso® Schematic Editor, Virtuoso Analog Design Environment, Virtuoso AMS Designer, Virtuoso Schematic Model Generator, Virtuoso Power Intent Assistant, Incisive® Enterprise Simulator with DMS option, Virtuoso Digital Implementation, Virtuoso Layout Suite, Encounter® RTL Compiler, Encounter Test, and Conformal Low Power. An extended version of this demo will also be shown at the ARM® Connected Community Pavilion Booth #921.

For additional highlights on Cadence mixed-signal and low-power solutions, stop by our booth for:

• The popular book, Mixed-signal Methodology Guide, which will be on sale during DAC week!
• A sneak preview of the eBook version of the Mixed-signal Methodology Guide
• Customer presentations at the Cadence DAC Theater
  • 9am, Tuesday, June 4  ARM  Low-Power Verification of A15 Hard Macro Using CLP 
  • 10:30am, Tuesday, June 4  Silicon Labs  Power Mode Verification in Mixed-Signal Chip
  • 12:00pm, Tuesday, June 4  IBM  An Interoperable Flow with Unified OA and QRC Technology Files
  • 9am, Wednesday, June 5  Marvell  Low-Power Verification Using CLP
  • 4pm, Wednesday, June 5  Texas Instruments  An Inter-Operable Flow with Unified OA and QRC Technology Files
• Partner presentations at the Cadence DAC Theater
  • 10am, Monday, June 3  X-Fab  Rapid Adoption of Advanced Cadence Design Flows Using X-FAB's AMS Reference Kit
  • 3:30pm, Monday, June 3  TSMC TSMC Custom Reference Flow for 20nm -  Cadence Track
  • 9:30am,Tuesday, June 4  TowerJazz   Substrate Noise Isolation Extraction/Model Using Cadence Analog Flow
  • 12:30pm, Wednesday, June 5  GLOBALFOUNDRIES  20nm/14nm Analog/Mixed-signal Flow
  • 2:30pm, Wednesday, June 5  ARM  Cortex®-M0 and Cortex-M0+: Tiny, Easy, and Energy-efficient Processors for Mixed-signal Applications
• Technology sessions at suites
  • 10am, Monday, June 3    Low-power Verification of Mixed-signal Designs
  • 2pm, Monday, June 3      Advanced Implementation Techniques for Mixed-signal Designs
  • 2pm, Monday, June 3      LP Simulation: Are You Really Done?
  • 4pm, Monday, June 3      Power Format Update: Latest on CPF and IEEE 1801  
  • 11am, Wednesday, June 5   Mixed-signal Verification
  • 11am, Wednesday, June 5   LP Simulation: Are You Really Done?
  • 4pm, Wednesday, June 5   Successful RTL-to-GDSII Low-Power Design (FULL)
  • 5pm, Wednesday, June 5   Custom/AMS Design at Advanced Nodes

We will also have three presentations at the Si2 booth (#1427):

• 10:30am, Monday, June 3   An Interoperable Implementation Solution for Mixed-signal Design
• 11:30am, Tuesday, June 4   Low-power Verification for Mixed-signal Designs Using CPF
• 10:30am, Wednesday, June 5   System-level Low-power Verification Using Palladium

We have a great program at DAC. Click the link for complete Cadence DAC Theater and Technology Sessions. Look forward to seeing you at DAC!     

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

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  

Key findings: 5X to 32X faster low-power verification using Palladium XP emulation

It’s hot in July in Korea, and not just the temperature; the ideas, too. The ideas that flowed at CDNLive Korea were exciting, and that includes a very interesting talk by Jiyeon Park from the System LSI division of Samsung Electronics.  His talk, titled “Enabling Low-Power Verification using Cadence Palladium XP,” struck a chord with the audience and the highlights bear sharing in this forum. This blog captures some of the highlights from the public talk in Seoul this summer.

Motivation

If you are familiar with the breadth of the product lines at Samsung Electronics, you will appreciate the diversity of the end-market requirements that they must fulfill. These markets and products include:

Mobile/Handheld

• Smartphones
• Tablets
• Laptops

Consumer/Digital Home

• High-definition/ultra-high-definition TV
• Gaming consoles
• Computers 

Networking/Data Center

• Servers
• Switches
• Communications

What all of these markets have in common is that energy efficiency is now an integral and leading part of the value equation. For design teams, a good knowledge of power helps the evaluation and use of a host of critical decisions. From design architecture, IP make-versus-buy decisions, and manufacturing process selection, to the use of low-power design techniques, all are critically influenced by power.

Using simulation for low-power verification

Once the decision to overlay power reduction design techniques, such as power shutdown, has been made, new dimensions have been added to the already complex SoC verification task. The RTL verification environment is first augmented with a power intent file; in this case, IEEE 1801 was the format.  The inclusion of this power intent information enables the examination of power domain shutdown, isolation operations, proper retention, and level shifting.

Figure 1: Incisive SimVision power verification elements example

Low-power verification using emulation

Simulation for low-power verification works well, so why emulation? One word—complexity!  It is easy to forget that “design complexity” (usually measured in gates or transistors) is not that same as “verification complexity” (which is really hard to measure). Consider a design with four power domains, three of which are switchable and one that is switchable but also has high- and low-voltage states. That yields nine basic states, and 24 modes of operation to test. Although some of those modes may not be consequential, when paired with hundreds or even thousands of functional tests, you can begin to understand the impact of overlaying low power on the verification problem. Thus, it becomes very desirable to enlist the raw computational power of emulation.

Power off/on scenario on Palladium XP platform

A typical functional test would be augmented to include the power control signals. For power shutoff verification, for instance, the cycles for asserting isolation begin the sequence, followed by state retention, and then finally a power shutdown of the domain must be asserted to verify operation. The figure below calls out a number of checks that ought to be performed.

Figure 2: Power shutoff sequence and associated checks to make

IEEE 1801 support in Palladium XP platform

The IEEE 1801 support found in the Palladium PX platform includes some noteworthy capabilities, as well as some implications to the user. First is a patented memory randomization provided by the Palladium XP platform. This capability includes randomization of memory during shutdown and power up, control over read value during the power-off state, non-volatile memory state retention, and freezing of data on retention. The user should be aware there is about a 10%-20% capacity overhead associated with IEEE 1801-driven low-power verification.

Figure 3: Palladium low-power verification enables schedule improvement

Palladium low-power verification flow

The great thing about the emulation work flow for IEEE 1801 power verification is that the only change is to include that IEEE 1801 power intent file during the compilation stage!

Considerations for emulation environment bring-up

A Universal Verification Methodology (UVM) approach was taken by the Samsung team. This provides a unique structure to the testbench environment that is very conducive to a metric-driven methodology.  Using a testbench acceleration interface, teams can run the testbench on a software simulator and the design on the emulator. In addition, the formalism allows for the case of incomplete designs that do not hinder the verification of the parts that are completed.

Experimental results

The most exciting part of the paper was the results that were obtained. For a minor overhead cost in compile time and capacity, the team was able to improve runtimes of their tests by 5X to 32X. Being able run tests in a fraction of the time, or many more tests in the same time, has always been a benefit for emulation users. Now low-power verification is a proven part of the value provided to Palladium XP platform users.

Figure 4: Samsung low-power verification emulation results

Conclusions

The key conclusions found were:

• No modification was needed for IEEE 1801
• There is a small capacity and compile time overhead
• The emulation and simulation match
• The longer the test, the more the net speed up versus software simulation
• Run times improved from 5X to 32X!

With this flow in place, the teams has begun power-aware testing that includes firmware and software verification to go along with the hardware testing. This expansion enables more capability in optimization of the power architecture. In addition, they are seeing faster silicon bring-up in the context of an applied low-power strategy.

Steve Carlson

Hello, i have made a power gain circle for 30dB,for setting a GAIN we need to set a matching network for input and output inpedance.

but in this Gain circles it shows me only one complex number instead of two.(As shown bellow)

Where did i go wrong with using it to find the input and output impedancies needed to be matched in order to have 30dB gain?
Thanks.

Hi,

I have to Take DRC report by cadence skill code I don't know the command to get Element 1 and Element 2 Report any one please help me out.

I am trying to create NoProbeTop using skill language for the chip component.

My code snippet is :
thisNPTShape2 = axlDBCreateOpenShape(path t "MANUFACTURING/NO_PROBE_TOP" nil )

I am getting the below output values:
path = _axlPath@0x24399f41d28.

*WARNING* (axlDBCreateOpenShape): Not a floating-point number! - nil

Can you guide me on how to convert to floating-point/get out of the floating-point error?

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.

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

This is the 21st installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

When all political parties agree on something, you know you might have a problem. Giriraj Singh, a minister in Narendra Modi’s new cabinet, tweeted this week that our population control law should become a “movement.” This is something that would find bipartisan support – we are taught from school onwards that India’s population is a big problem, and we need to control it.

This is wrong. Contrary to popular belief, our population is not a problem. It is our greatest strength.

The notion that we should worry about a growing population is an intuitive one. The world has limited resources. People keep increasing. Something’s gotta give.

Robert Malthus made just this point in his 1798 book, An Essay on the Principle of Population. He was worried that our population would grow exponentially while resources would grow arithmetically. As more people entered the workforce, wages would fall and goods would become scarce. Calamity was inevitable.

Malthus’s rationale was so influential that this mode of thinking was soon called ‘Malthusian.’ (It is a pejorative today.) A 20th-century follower of his, Harrison Brown, came up with one of my favourite images on this subject, arguing that a growing population would lead to the earth being “covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots.”

Another Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich, published a book called The Population Bomb in 1968, which began with the stirring lines, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Ehrlich was, as you’d guess, a big supporter of India’s coercive family planning programs. ““I don’t see,” he wrote, “how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980.”

None of these fears have come true. A 2007 study by Nicholas Eberstadt called ‘Too Many People?’ found no correlation between population density and poverty. The greater the density of people, the more you’d expect them to fight for resources – and yet, Monaco, which has 40 times the population density of Bangladesh, is doing well for itself. So is Bahrain, which has three times the population density of India.

Not only does population not cause poverty, it makes us more prosperous. The economist Julian Simon pointed out in a 1981 book that through history, whenever there has been a spurt in population, it has coincided with a spurt in productivity. Such as, for example, between Malthus’s time and now. There were around a billion people on earth in 1798, and there are around 7.7 billion today. As you read these words, consider that you are better off than the richest person on the planet then.

Why is this? The answer lies in the title of Simon’s book: The Ultimate Resource. When we speak of resources, we forget that human beings are the finest resource of all. There is no limit to our ingenuity. And we interact with each other in positive-sum ways – every voluntary interactions leaves both people better off, and the amount of value in the world goes up. This is why we want to be part of economic networks that are as large, and as dense, as possible. This is why most people migrate to cities rather than away from them – and why cities are so much richer than towns or villages.

If Malthusians were right, essential commodities like wheat, maize and rice would become relatively scarcer over time, and thus more expensive – but they have actually become much cheaper in real terms. This is thanks to the productivity and creativity of humans, who, in Eberstadt’s words, are “in practice always renewable and in theory entirely inexhaustible.”

The error made by Malthus, Brown and Ehrlich is the same error that our politicians make today, and not just in the context of population: zero-sum thinking. If our population grows and resources stays the same, of course there will be scarcity. But this is never the case. All we need to do to learn this lesson is look at our cities!

This mistaken thinking has had savage humanitarian consequences in India. Think of the unborn millions over the decades because of our brutal family planning policies. How many Tendulkars, Rahmans and Satyajit Rays have we lost? Think of the immoral coercion still carried out on poor people across the country. And finally, think of the condescension of our politicians, asserting that people are India’s problem – but always other people, never themselves.

This arrogance is India’s greatest problem, not our people.

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

Hello,
I'm exploring VManager tool capabilities.

I launched a simulation with xrun, which terminates with a fatal error (`uvm_fatal actually).

Then I imported the flow session, through VManager -> Regression -> Collect Runs, linking the directory with ucm and ucd of just failed run.

VManager imports the test with following attributes:

Total Runs =1

#Passed =1

#Failed =0

What I'm missing here? It should be imported as failed test.

If I right click on flow name and choose Analyze All Runs, VManager brings me to Analysis tab and I can see only a PASSED tag in Runs subwindow.

Thank you for any help

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

hi,

due to technical problem i am running simulation through terminal. Therefore, I have a Verilog file, a test bench and i have also exported from Genus synthesized netlist and sdf file. Now, how can i annotate sdf in my post-synthesis simulation using XCELIUM while using command line?

thank you

We’ve all seen bar codes and the more modern QR codes. They’re everywhere you go – items at the grocery store, advertisements and posters, even on websites. Did you know that, with the productivity toolbox in Allegro Package Designe...(read more)

Is there a setting for automatically naming nets from port names in a hierarchical design? That is, when creating a netlist for Allegro in Capture.

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

Hi,

I have a new customer that uses Allegro Design entry HDL for the schematic and have a few questions.

1. How do you get pin/gate swaps into the symbols in the schematic ?

2. How do you transfer them to the pcb editor ?

3. How do you back annotate the swaps from the pcb editor to the schematic ?

4. How do you stop the export/Import physical from updating the constraints in the pcb file ? 

Hi everybody,

The attached package is a tiny code example with a demo for an upcoming Team Specman blog post about writing macros.

Hilmar

Hello,

 I am working in a digital design. The functional, post synthesis and post P&R without IO pads are all working fine, i.e., functionally and with clean timing reports "no setup/hold violations". I just added the IO pads to the same design, I had to change the timing constraints a bit for the synthesis but I have a clean design at SOC Encounter, i.e., clean DRC and clean timing reports "no setup/hold violations". However, when I perform simulation using the exported net-list from SOC Encounter together with SDF exported from the same tool, I got a lot of hold violations. Consequently, the design is not funcitioning.

Why and how I can overcome or trobleshoot this issue?

In waiting for your feedback and comments.

Regards.