webinar banner2025 (1)

Build Custom SoC Assembly Platforms

Build Custom SoC Assembly Platforms
by Bernard Murphy on 02-25-2020 at 6:00 am

STAR RTL design builder

I’ve talked with Defacto on and off for several years – Chouki Aktouf (CEO) and Bastien Gratreaux (Marketing). I was in a similar line of business back in Atrenta. Now I’m just enjoying myself, I’ve written a few blogs for them. I’ll confess I wondered why they wouldn’t struggle with the same problems we’d had. Script-driven RTL editing, design restructuring, real enough problems for which a solution is needed only infrequently. Recently I had an animated discussion with Chouki and now I believe I get it.

To explain, I need to back up a couple of steps. First, automating SoC assembly and related functions is now very common. A lot of this process is very mechanical – dropping in IPs and hooking up top level connections, easy to automate through a script and a bunch of spreadsheets. And where it isn’t purely bookkeeping, it lends itself very well to further script-driven additions – in hookup for IO, power management, interrupts, in the software interface through register and memory-map definitions.

IP-XACT was going to be the unifying standard behind all of this, and some organizations bought in enthusiastically – NXP, certain groups in ST and some groups in Samsung for example. Multiple IP vendors also bought in. What’s not to like about having standardized interfaces with your customers?

A lot of design houses weren’t so sure. Their in-house solutions worked fine. When it was time to upgrade, they’d work on the next generation of their solution – I had s similar discussion with Qualcomm years ago – but they weren’t comfortable with going all the way to IP-XACT. They liked the flexibility of being able to go outside the lines if they needed. They also had a lot of legacy databases in CSV and other formats they knew how to read, which would be a hassle to manage in switching to the standard.

But they still liked IP-XACT (along with other views) as a way to get IP from vendors. In other words, they wanted it all. Standards where it suited them, backward compatibility with legacy data, and flexibility to adapt and innovate at their pace, not the pace of an industry standard.

This is not a great starting point for a canned product. It’s a much better recipe for a platform/infrastructure product. Something that will take care of the mechanics of reading and writing multiple formats, from CSV, to Excel, to RTL to IP-XACT, etc, and provide a centralized object model, on top of which you can script to read, write or modify to your heart’s content.

Who cares about this? Pretty much anyone doing SoC design. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to figure out that Apple, Google, Samsung, Qualcomm, storage guys and many others are recruiting people with IP-XACT expertise and/or talking about what they’re doing in a variety of conferences. I’m sure none or few of them are diving head-first into full-blown IP-XACT. I didn’t get this from Defacto, I just did a little searching.

So the big reveal – this is what Defacto is providing. An infrastructure to take care of all the read, modify, update mechanics across all these formats through a unified, persistent datastructure, letting customers build their value-add in scripting on top of APIs to the object model. They also provide a number of implementation-centric functions and checks.

Now that makes sense to me.

You can learn more about Defacto HERE.

Also Read

Another Application of Automated RTL Editing

Analysis and Signoff for Restructuring

Design Deconstruction


China Chip Equip Embargo just got real

China Chip Equip Embargo just got real
by Robert Maire on 02-24-2020 at 10:00 am

Chip Embargo Just Got Real

Worst Case Scenario now possible!

  • Embargo could extend beyond China to Taiwan (TSMC)
  • Likely backs up ASML pressure & Huawei indictment
  • “Maximum Pressure” campaign similar to Iran
  • Not likely to go away through trade negotiations

US to restrict chip equipment sales to Huawei producers
The Wall Street Journal confirmed, what we have been saying for a while, that US semiconductor equipment companies will likely be restricted in foreign sales. The confirmation goes beyond our likely worse case scenario of halting China sales to halting sales to any company that could supply Huawei with chips.

This would go well beyond China and would include Taiwan (TSMC) and other countries that could produce any sort of chip that could help Huawei.  This is much more far reaching and impactful than even a disastrous embargo on China alone.

Collision Course with Taiwan
This potential embargo would put us on a collision course with Taiwan by essentially forcing them to take sides in the semiconductor war between the US and China. Given that TSMC makes chips for Huawei, this would in essence force TSMC to stop doing business with Huawei much as we forced the Dutch from doing business (in EUV) with China as well.

This would put even more pressure on China’s desire to re-unite the run away province of China otherwise known as Taiwan. It could get even uglier very fast.

Embargo has been a long time coming, won’t go away quickly
We predicted a potential embargo of US semiconductor equipment sales to China starting two years ago. We were roundly criticized and dismissed by most in the industry and other analysts who suggested “it will never happen”, and here we are, its happening. We then predicted a year and a half ago that ASML would be the first to be impacted , and were again scoffed at, but then it happened.

We also said in our recent report on the ASML blocked EUV tool that it would be difficult for the US to keep up the pressure on the Dutch when the US continued to sell equipment China. We  said that this meant that the US would likely follow through with its own restrictions on US equipment makers….and here we are. Exactly as predicted.

This is not a trade negotiations bargaining chip

Maximum pressure
The recent indictment of Huawei and this potential equipment embargo do not appear to be bargaining chips in the trade discussions as the discussions are over and these points were not raised during the discussions. The ASML pressure campaign was also done in the dark, behind the scenes.

These multiple line of attack prongs look a lot like the maximum pressure campaign on Iran, which is a multi faceted attack across many fronts attempting to get a specific outcome. In this case it is disabling Huawei and saving 5G for the US to lead.

All this suggests that these pressures will not go away quickly or easily and will not be negotiated by the stroke of a pen, its long term trench warfare.

US equipment companies could get sacrificed
From a political fallout perspective, the three major US equipment companies, Applied Materials, KLA and Lam are all in California which the current administration does not count on for support and seems to be at war with on several other fronts. There are no equipment companies in Kentucky or swing states, nor are any farmers harmed.

Much as we suggested that ASML would be a good opening shot due to zero political fallout, sacrificing US equipment companies does not have significant political consequences, as the US ratchets up the pressure.

Impacts more than majority of revenues
Its probably safe to say that a Huawei related chip equipment embargo could impact virtually all customers with the potential exception of Intel and even Intel could be affected if it wanted to sell chips to Huawei (albeit a very low probability..). It could obviously apply to Samsungs memory business as well as their foundry business. This could be a nightmare of enforcement of trying to figure out which equipment sold to whom was used to make chips for who? The semiconductor industry is so interconnected and international that it would have global impact.

This news has already permanently damaged US equipment makers
If a chip maker were on the fence about US versus Japanese equipment or Israeli or Korean, its clear the choice would be a foreign supplier to reduce the risk of the US government intervention. It obviously redoubles the efforts for China to make its own equipment. Even non-US equipment makers are vulnerable as ASML found out, but probably to a lesser extent.

Supports our more cautious view of the stocks

The China related risks to the chip and chip equipment industries change so fast it makes your head spin.First we had trade risk, then we have had Corona risk, now we are back to a US government policy risk against China.

Death by poison, death by hanging or death by firing squad…take your pick…they are all negative.  It just adds up to more risk against a back drop of stocks that have been on a tear.

In our view, Corona has been correctly discounted by the market as a transitory, temporary issue that we will get over. The trade dispute seems to have been somewhat dealt with by some agreements and kicking cans down the road.  The embargo risk is very long term in nature, much more widespread than China alone and is quite complicated given all the inter relationships. It would seem logical that as the news gets out the discount should be higher.

As no company other than ASML has had its shipments stopped by this potential embargo the market likely is dismissing it. We would not.

We have already heard of the government digging into company records of who is shipping what to China. If the government is already sniffing around it suggests they are serious about making a “bad list” of companies and equipment and are not that far from implementation.

The first company to announce sanctions on them will open the floodgates.  ASML is far away in Europe with lots of European investors. When it hits Applied, KLA or Lam it will get serious, fast….


Semiconductor Recovery in 2020?

Semiconductor Recovery in 2020?
by Bill Jewell on 02-24-2020 at 6:00 am

GPD 2019 Semiconductors SemiWiki

Semiconductors down 12% in 2019
World Semiconductor Trades Statistics (WSTS) reported the world semiconductor market in 2019 was $412 billion, a 12.1% decline from $469 billion in 2018. Most of the decline was in the memory market (primarily DRAM and Flash) which was down a third from a year ago. However overall semiconductor demand was down for the year as the global economy slowed from 3.6% growth in 2018 to 2.9% growth in 2019, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

We at Semiconductor Intelligence have been tracking the accuracy of semiconductor market forecasts from various sources for several years. We look at publicly available projections made late in the prior year or early in the forecast year before any WSTS monthly data for the forecast year is released (generally in early March). Based on these criteria we had a tie for most accurate forecast for 2019. Objective Analysis in December 2018 predicted the semiconductor market would decline 5% in 2019 primarily due to a weak memory market. Also in December 2018, Morgan Stanley called for a 5% decline in 2019. Thus, Objective Analysis and Morgan Stanley win our (virtual) forecasting prize for 2019. UBS was a close second with a projected 4.3% decline. Most forecasters expected low single-digit growth going into 2019. We at Semiconductor Intelligence in December 2018 projected growth of 4% for 2019.

Outlook for 2020 and 2021
The IMF January 2020 World Economic Outlook Update called for an acceleration of World GDP growth from 2.9% in 2019 to 3.3% in 2020 and 3.4% in 2021. The advanced economies are not expected to see any GDP acceleration, with 2020 and 2021 GDP growth of 1.6%, slightly lower than 1.7% in 2019. The acceleration will come from emerging and developing economies, with GDP growth picking up from 3.7% in 2019 to 4.4% in 2020 and 4.6% in 2021. Slowing growth in China will be more than offset by increasing growth rates in other regions, particularly India and the ASEAN-5.

U.S./China Trade and Brexit
Two key issues which have been major concerns for the global economy over the last couple of years have been at least partially resolved. The U.S. and China reached a Phase One trade deal which was signed January 15, 2020. Under the deal, the U.S. will lower tariffs on Chinese imports and China will purchase more U.S. agricultural goods and financial services. While many issues remain, the deal reduces the potential of a major U.S.-China trade war.

The United Kingdom (UK) officially withdrew from the European Union (EU) on January 31, 2020. This process, known as Brexit, will go through a transition period for the rest of the year to negotiate new trade agreements and other issues between the UK and the EU. Prior to the official exit, Brexit had been a question mark on the UK and EU economies.

Coronavirus
Just as U.S./China trade and Brexit are in the beginning phases of resolution, a new threat to global health and the economy has emerged. Reports of a deadly new respiratory virus began to emerge from Wuhan, China in December 2019. The novel coronavirus has been named COVID-19 the by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO stated as of February 20 China has reported 74,675 cases and 2,121 deaths. Outside of China COVID-19 has 1,076 cases and 7 deaths.

COVID-19 is certainly a global health concern. The economic concern is how efforts to stop the spread of the virus will affect China production and demand. The IMF did not consider COVID-19 in its January 2020 economic update. The IMF has since stated the impact of COVID-19 is dependent on how quickly the virus is contained. The optimistic case is a quick resolution would result in a sharp drop in China’s GDP growth in 1Q 2020, but return to normal growth over the course of the year. The pessimistic case is a more severe outbreak would severely weaken the Chinese economy and disrupt global supply chains.

Some companies have taken measures to adjust to production issues in China. Nikkei Asian Review reported Samsung’s Galaxy smartphone factories in Vietnam are at full capacity as it is moving components from China. Apple issued a guidance update on February 17 stating it will not meet its March quarter guidance due to iPhone supply constraints and lower demand for its products in China. Digitimes disclosed Apple is considering moving manufacturing of some of its devices from China to Taiwan. Omdia (a new organization resulting from the merger of the research division of Informa Tech with IHS Markit’s technology research) projects COVID-19 will reduce smartphone demand in China, disrupt display panel manufacturing, and affect the Chinese games market. EETimes issued a detailed report on the impact of COVID-19 on technology companies.

Outlook for Semiconductors in 2020
The near-term outlook for the semiconductor market is uncertain due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Of the eight top companies providing 1Q 2020 revenue guidance, six expect a revenue decline versus 4Q 2019, ranging from -3% from Texas Instruments to -14.3% from STMicroelectronics. Qualcomm expects a 4.4% increase in revenue and Infineon expects 5.0%, however both these companies mentioned concerns over the coronavirus (COVID-19).

Semiconductor market forecasts for 2020 vary widely. Objective Analysis (co-winner of our 2019 forecast prize) expects 2020 change of “at best zero” based on continuing memory weakness. At the other extreme, Future Horizons is calling for a minimum of 10% growth, with 15% possible. Other forecasts are in the range of 3% to 8%. We at Semiconductor Intelligence have lowered of 2020 forecast from 10% in December 2019 to
7.0% based primarily on COVID-19 concerns.

The outlook for 2021 is slightly better than 2020. All four organizations providing 2021 forecasts see growth improving from 2020, ranging from 4.9% from the Cowan LRA Model to 9.6% from IHS Markit. Our Semiconductor Intelligence forecast for 2021 remains at the 8% we projected in December 2019. We are assuming COVID-19 is contained in the next few months and the fundamentals driving improved economic growth in 2021 remain in place.

Also Read:

CES 2020: still no flying cars

Semiconductor CapEx Warning

Electronics, COVID-19, and Ukraine


The COVID-19 Virus Outbreak and the Semiconductor Supply Chain

The COVID-19 Virus Outbreak and the Semiconductor Supply Chain
by Mark Dyson on 02-23-2020 at 10:00 am

The COVID 19 virus outbreak and the semiconductor supply chain

Welcome to my weekly roundup of the key semiconductor news from around the world from last week.  The COVID-19 virus outbreak and it’s impact on the semiconductor supply chain continues to dominate the news, but there was also lots of other news from around the world, so please read on.

Let’s start by a review of where the started at the end of January. This article from SEMI shows that through December into January there was a steady recovery in the global electronic supply chain, with both the SEMI equipment market showing growth and the global purchasing managers index moving into expansion territory in January.  But in late January COVID-19 began to make its negative impact felt, causing disruption to supply chains and shutting down factories around Wuhan, China and other electronics manufacturing centers.  The full impact of the COVID-19 outbreak has yet to show in the numbers and will only be seen in February and March sales numbers.

The impact of COVID-19 on the various semiconductor manufacturing segments is analysed in these 2 articles, one from ECNS in China and one from EETimes. They both paint the same picture reporting the wafer Fab sector doesn’t seem to be badly affected with most Fabs up and running.  This maybe partly due to the locations of the wafer fabs and also partly due to the level of automation used in manufacturing in the wafer sector.  The main impact is being seen downstream in assembly plants and other components manufacturing sites for optics and sensors where due to the labour intensive nature of the manufacturing and also the fact that a lot of these factories closed over Chinese New Year and so were not allowed to restart until Feb 10th or even later, and some are still pending approval from local governments to restart. Also even when they can restart, getting back the full workforce is still a big challenge with many people still quarantined, so for assembly and optical/sensor suppliers there is some impact, but this will only really be felt in the coming weeks.  Another sector impacting the supply chain is logistics of shipping product.  Despite the overall disruption the sentiment is that the sector will recover once the outbreak s over.

This week Apple issued a rare revenue warning that the March quarter would be lower than previous guidance due to the impact of COVID-19, however Apple did not give a revised guidance. There is also expected to be an impact to other Chinese phone companies like Huawei, Oppo and Xiaomi who mainly produce in China as well as suppliers like Foxconn.

Samsung has also been affected by COVID-19 as this weekend they announced that one coronavirus case had been confirmed at its mobile device factory complex in the southeastern city of Gumi, Korea, causing a shutdown of its entire facility there until Monday morning. The plant produces only a small proportion of Samsung’s phone with most production being done in Vietnam and India.

Away from COVID-19, Dialogue announced it will acquire Adesto for $500 million enterprise value ($12.55 per share in cash),.  Adesto was founded in 2006 and based in Santa Clara, is a  leading provider of innovative custom integrated circuits (ICs) and embedded systems for the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) market,  Adesto has approximately 270 employees.

The US continues in it’s plans to impose more restrictions on companies selling technology to Huawei.  This week the Pentagon dropped it’s opposition to the US Commerce Dept’s proposal to further tighten restrictions on selling American technology to Huawei, by tightening the rule from 20% to 10% content.

At the same time as law makers were planning to put in extra restrictions, the Commerce department announced that Huawei will get another 45 day reprieve from the original restriction by granting another temporary general license. This is the 4th extension to date, previously 3 90 day temporary general licences have been issued in May, Aug & Nov.

In addition Huawei has said it has secured more than 90 commercial 5G contracts worldwide, an increase of nearly 30 from last year despite the relentless pressure from U.S. authorities. In a press conference in London on Tuesday, Ryan Ding, president of Huawei’s carrier business group said “We have 91 commercial 5G contracts worldwide, including 47 from Europe,” and added that “One year ago, I said we are leading by 18 months ahead of our competitors in 5G technology. Now, we still maintain that leadership.”

Compound semiconductor substrate manufacturer, AXT, said that it’s Q4 revenue  dropped 17% yoy due to a drop in GaAs and Ge substrate sales.  For full-year 2019, reported revenue of $83.3m, down 18.7% compared to 2018.

Market research company Yole Développement expects the global 3D imaging and sensing market to expand from $5.0 billion in 2019 to $15.0 billion in 2025, at a 20 percent CAGR.  They expect  the 3D sensing main trend to switch from the front to the rear of phones with the adoption of ToF camera’s mass adoption. According to Yole’s 3D imaging & sensing report, rear attachment will surpass front attachment with market penetration rate reaching about 42 percent in 2025.

STMicroelectronics has announced a collaboration with TSMC to accelerate the development of Gallium Nitride (GaN) process technology and the supply of both discrete and integrated GaN devices to market. Through this partnership, ST’s GaN products will be manufactured using TSMC’s GaN process technology.

Finally a couple of articles about the semiconductor supply chain.  One article from SEMI is about building a healthy supply chain for critical subsystem components where the lack of alternative suppliers causes significant risks.

Another article is by UCLA Anderson where they reviewed pricing in the semiconductor industry and found that  in about 26% of transactions rather than getting volume discounts the manufacturer charged more for large quantities, and this shows how the supplier values production capacity when negotiating pricing.

That’s all for this week, if you enjoyed what you read, please do help to like and share my article so that others may also enjoy it.


Cryptocurrency Fraud Reached $4.3 Billion in 2019

Cryptocurrency Fraud Reached $4.3 Billion in 2019
by Matthew Rosenquist on 02-23-2020 at 6:00 am

Cryptocurrency Fraud Reached 4.3 Billion in 2019

Cryptocurrency fraud is aggressively on the rise and topped over $4 billion last year, according to the security tracking company Chainalysis.

This is especially shocking to those who thought they had found an incredible investment in the cryptocurrency world, yet were swindled out of everything. As part of these cryptocurrency scams, victims are lured into investing with the hype of significant returns. Once committed, they are often shown how their accounts are quickly accruing vast wealth, which encourages them to pour even more of their money into the con. The mirage eventually disappears, as does the money, when the operation shutters without notice and the swindlers vanish will all the deposits. Victims are left with the realization they were duped as part of an elaborate hoax and powerless to recover their money.

Chainalysis recently produced an industry report highlighting the scope of the problem. The organization specializes in helping businesses and governments understand illegal cryptocurrency transactions. The data showcases the rapid rise in 2019 of big Ponzi scams that represented the bulk of the losses. The top six of the large-scale scams were collectively responsible for about 90% of the fraud. It proves when cybercriminals find the right lure in the cryptocurrency community, such as a Ponzi style scam, the momentum quickly accelerates and draws more into the system, becoming massive in scale.

Fraudsters like cryptocurrency
Some of the beneficial attributes of cryptocurrency are being leveraged against those who aren’t mindful of the risks. Cryptocurrency has a reputation for a financial opportunity because of its history of volatile price swings, both high and low. Media has spotlighted many who have made considerable fortunes with meager beginnings. Scammers take advantage and reach out to this growing global community that desires fast riches, yet is very naïve with the risks.

The ability to transfer crypto tokens virtually, means they are everywhere but nowhere. Criminals understand this dichotomy and use it to their advantage. Once the money is in the hands of crooks, it begins a rapid journey across the digital landscape and into dark corners where it is hard to trace or impound.

Victims are often left with a total loss and little hope they will ever get any of their money back. For criminals, the potential of unimaginable gains, sometimes in the hundreds of millions of dollars or more, far exceeds the risk of being caught and prosecuted.

Privacy, Regulations, and Law Enforcement on the edge
Part of what makes these scams so attractive for cybercriminals to run is the ability to remain unidentified. The inherent anonymity of users is a challenge in the cryptocurrency world. Regulatory rules for Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AMC) are proliferating across legitimate exchanges and services, which greatly help identify fraudsters and increase accountability, but there is a lack of consistency and there are always workarounds. Other services promote their support for customer privacy and account anonymity, often finding loopholes or outright avoiding such requirements.

Many of these services are not intentionally malicious or fraudulent, but as part of their belief in the benefits of privacy, they are indirectly supporting potentially illicit activities. Overall, the vast majority of cryptocurrency transactions are legitimate and only a small minority of the overall transactions are tied to illegal activity.  But criminals will use whatever tools available to shield themselves from accountability and prosecution.

Many in the crypto community, who are doing nothing illegal, greatly value their privacy and anonymity. They are attracted to services that don’t require identification and keep their transactions confidential. There is a natural tension in the system that the growing community is still struggling with. I have spoken with many who are staunch advocates for their rights of privacy, in some cases even to the extent of being un-trackable by governments, yet show immediate regret and anger at those same entities when they lose money to a fraudster and have no recourse for justice. Still, some accept those risks as table stakes and prefer to remain anonymous.

Law enforcement is facing great difficulties adapting to digital crimes but is slowly getting better. For cryptocurrency, they work with experts to track transactions in public blockchains and collaborate with major exchanges to identify criminal activities and trace the flow of illicit funds. It is not easy and the growing number of victims makes it impossible to help even a fraction of those defrauded. The focus tends to be on big cases, like the multi-billion-dollar PlusToken Ponzi scam in 2019 where millions of users were told they could earn 10% a month on their investment. Ultimately, the criminals pulled in over $2 billion before it collapsed and the money is now gone. It has been digitally laundered and dispersed among thousands of anonymous accounts.

Although Chinese authorities were able to identify and apprehend 6 of the individuals behind the scheme, most crimes go unsolved. The chance of restitution for the PlusToken victims is almost non-existent.

The continued rise of the cryptocurrency market and ease in which to convince victims encourages the greed of fraudsters. Scams are getting more elaborate and convincing. Law enforcement is getting better but must face the evolving challenges of technology. More ‘privacy’ designed currencies are gaining momentum and will pose new hurdles to investigate and prosecute criminals, forcing authorities to continually adapt. In the meanwhile, people will be at risk. So far, using common sense in vetting investments is the best way to avoid cryptocurrency victimization.


Edge Computing – The Critical Middle Ground

Edge Computing – The Critical Middle Ground
by Mike Gianfagna on 02-21-2020 at 10:00 am

Computing hierarchy

Ron Lowman, product marketing manager at Synopsys, recently posted an interesting technical bulletin on the Synopsys website entitled How AI in Edge Computing Drives 5G and the IoT. There’s been a lot of discussion recently about the emerging processing hierarchy of edge devices (think cell phone or self-driving car), cloud computing (think Google, Amazon or Microsoft) and the newest middle ground in between (edge computing). The current deployment of 5G networks delivers the capability of creating much more data than ever before, and how and where that data will be processed makes the processing hierarchy even more important.

Some facts are in order.  First an observation from me – please don’t think 5G is for your cell phone. While your carrier will likely make a big deal about 5G reception, that isn’t the primary use of this technology; your cell phone is plenty fast enough now. 5G holds the promise of wirelessly linking many other data sources in a high bandwidth, low latency way. This is part of the promise of IoT. A quote from Ron’s piece helps drive home the point:

“By 2020, more than 50 billion smart devices will be connected worldwide. These devices will generate zettabytes (ZB) of data annually growing to more than 150 ZB by 2025.” (Data courtesy of Cisco.)

A little perspective is in order. A zettabyte is a billion terabytes, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes if you prefer the long form. According to Wikipedia, in 2012 there was upwards of 1 zettabyte of data in existence in the world. So, a 150-fold increase, just from edge devices, is kind of daunting. Given this situation, when you consider the traditional model of IoT (edge device) data processing in the cloud, a few problems come up. Ron’s article provides this catalog of issues:

  1. 150ZB of data will create capacity issues if all processed in a small number of places
  2. Transmitting that much data from its location of origin to centralized data centers is quite costly, in terms of energy, bandwidth, and compute power
  3. Power consumption of storing, transmitting and analyzing data is enormous

Regarding the second point, Ron goes on to report that estimates project only 12% of current data is even analyzed by the companies that own it and only 3% of that data contributes to any meaningful outcomes. So, finding an effective way to reduce cost and waste is clearly needed. Edge computing holds great promise to deal with these issues by decentralizing the processing task – essentially bringing it closer to the data source. More benefits reported by Ron include:

  1. Enable network reliability as applications can continue to function during widespread network outages
  2. Potential security improvements by eliminating some threat profiles such as global data center denial of service (DoS) attacks
  3. Provide low latency for real-time use cases such as virtual reality arcades and mobile device video caching

The last point is quite important. Ron points out that “cutting latency will generate new services, enabling devices to provide many innovative applications in autonomous vehicles, gaming platforms, or challenging, fast-paced manufacturing environments.” While local processing can go a long way to reduce waste and cost, more efficient methods are also important. Ron points to AI as a critical enabler for this to happen.

With this backdrop, Ron explores various edge computing use cases, market segments and the impact all this will have on server system SoCs. One use case described by Ron centers on the Microsoft HoloLens. It’s a fascinating case study of augmented reality and its demands for low latency and low power. Ron then talks about the power, processing and latency requirements of the various edge computing segments. If you think there’s one edge computing scenario, think again. The piece concludes with a discussion of the impact all this will have on server system SoCs. AI accelerators are a key piece of this discussion.

If any of this gets your attention, I strongly recommend reading Ron’s complete technical bulletin.  There is a lot of compelling detail there regarding AI and the edge. For the chip designers out there, I’ll leave you with one excerpt from Ron’s piece that summarizes the challenges and opportunities of the next generation of edge computing.


System Level Flows for SoC Architecture Analysis and Design – DVCON 2020

System Level Flows for SoC Architecture Analysis and Design – DVCON 2020
by Daniel Nenni on 02-21-2020 at 6:00 am

CST Header FF SL

As a professional conference attendee I look for the most meaningful way to spend my time and workshops is one of the best. Especially when a customer is involved and there is no bigger EDA customer than Intel, absolutely.

System Level Flows for SoC Architecture Analysis and Design

Speakers:
Swaminathan Ramachandran – CircuitSutra Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Umesh Sisodia – CircuitSutra Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Prassana Sadananda Rao – Intel Corp.

Organizer:
Umesh Sisodia – CircuitSutra Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

This workshop covers the latest trends and best practices in the domain of ESL methodologies for SoC Architecture, Co-Design, Co-Verification & raising the abstraction of chip design through High Level Synthesis. These advanced flows are enabled by using C, C++, SystemC, TLM2.0 along with traditional RTL flows.

Talk 1: Defining a SystemC Methodology for your Company
Swaminathan Ramachandran, CircuitSutra Technologies

As SystemC gains popularity in the fields of architecture evaluation, virtual platform development, SoC level verification, etc., more teams and companies want to explore, experiment and deploy it for their modeling use cases. While SystemC library provides the vocabulary and the nuts and bolts to build a useful and diverse set of models, it is sometimes too low level to be immediately useful. What is needed is a SystemC library analogous to Boost libraries in C++, for building blocks like memories, buses, registers, timers, etc. along with the infrastructure to quickly stitch them together into a working platform asap. Most of the Semiconductor companies who have successfully deployed SystemC, have developed their own tool independent methodology on top of SystemC, and they use it together with advanced modeling tools from EDA vendors. Such a library usually starts with basic building blocks, and over a period of time becomes a very rich collection of re-usable modeling components that can be re-used across various IP models, SoC variants, Modeling Use cases, business units, etc.

Any company looking to adopt SystemC in their flows should carefully conceptualize the development of such a methodology inhouse and can learn from the best practices being followed in the Industry. In this presentation, we will talk about what should be the content of such a methodology/library and how it should be conceptualized.

CircuitSutra has worked with leading semiconductor companies for more than a decade now and has participated in modeling projects from the stage of experimentation to pilot projects and to widespread adoption. We have an in-depth understanding of the best practices followed in the modeling domain.

Talk 2: System Flows in a “hybrid” Environment – Intel’s  Approach
Prassana Sadananda Rao – Intel Corp.

The validation of SOCs at System level with full FW/SW stack in the pre-silicon stage itself is essential to accelerate SW readiness, improve RTL quality and overall shorten the product development cycle.

SoC FPGAs and Virtual Platforms (VP) are amongst the standard de-fact pre-Si solutions, However, each comes with its pro and cons: SoC FPGA has RTL accuracy but is available only after SoC integration is completed. VP arrives early but is more of an architectural model rather than RTL instantiation.  To address this problem, our work describes an alternative leading-edge solution that starts at IP level itself. Single IP FPGA integrated into Virtual Platform (i.e., Hybrid IP-FPGA). Such a solution has the advantage of being available as soon as VP is ready. At the same time, it provides the IP RTL design with the necessary system-level context (i.e., interaction with FW/SW/Drivers of other components) which allows an early validation of IP design in an integrated environment instead of in isolation/standalone mode.

As a case study, we would present the results achieved on a complex PCI IP responsible for audio and sensing processing being integrated into one of the latest Intel SoC platforms. The IP was mapped to an IP FPGA, the SoC is modeled as a loosely timed Virtual Prototype and a hybrid layer plays the role of the glue logic for the two technologies. The overall Hybrid IP FPGA solution is proven to have a production level maturity that allowed the validation of complex system-level flows, such as security handshakes and power state transitions (reboot, S3, S4, and S5). Our case-study utilized only production-level SW/FW (the same that will be used on the real silicon) and enabled a tight interaction between the FPGA and other IPs of the platform thus exercising system-level flows which would be only visible when silicon is in the lab. This work set the foundation for making VP as the backbone of standalone IP RTL integration and candidates the proposed methodology as a breakthrough player in the pre-Si validation strategy of new SoC programs.

We will also discuss the challenges we faced while developing such a new methodology. In particular, the extra requirements that the VP model must satisfy to seamlessly integrate the hardware of the FPGA. As an example, the logic associated with the low-level hardware signals crossing the cutline of the two technologies must be modeled on VP with RTL accuracy in order to cope with FPGA expectations. Our future focus will be on developing VP interfaces in a scalable way to productize and scale such hybrid technology over a large set of different IPs.

Talk 3: Using High-Level Synthesis to Migrate Software Algorithms to Semiconductor Chip Designs
Umesh Sisodia, CircuitSutra Technologies

High-Level Synthesis (HLS) raises the abstraction of chip design beyond RTL. It enables the implementation of design functionality in high-level languages like C++/SystemC, and generates corresponding RTL using HLS tools. Synthesizable C++/SystemC code for design is very concise as compared to equivalent RTL code for the same design. Moreover, simulation of C++/SystemC models is much faster compared to RTL simulation. This allows significant productivity gains in the design and verification process.  HLS also allows separation of functionality from architecture constraints and technology parameters, thus permitting code re-use across different variants of semiconductor chips, or across FPGA and ASICs.

HLS flows are more effective for algorithm centric designs. Nowadays we see new chip design requirements for emerging domains like 5G, Deep Learning, Vision, Image Processing, Speech, Audio processing etc. In these domains, there are many algorithms implemented in software, and several of these are available as open source.

In this talk, we will present an HLS based methodology to quickly migrate a software algorithm implemented in plain C/C++ to a hardware implementation in RTL for semiconductor chips (FPGA or ASIC). We will also cover a verification flow that allows the reuse of the original test suite of the software algorithm to verify the synthesizable C++/SystemC model as well as the final RTL. The untimed C++/SystemC models are also suitable to be used in Virtual Platforms, that allows embedded software development much before the chip is designed.

This methodology accelerates the pace of innovation, enables faster rollout of new chips, permits experimentation by quickly trying out the functionality in software and hardware, and taking high-level architecture decisions much earlier in the cycle.

Talk 4: SystemC Methodology for RISC-V Ecosystem
Umesh Sisodia, CircuitSutra Technologies

SystemC is a C++ library created for design and verification at the SoC and system level. It is widely used in the industry for system-level modeling, virtual prototyping, hardware-software co-verification, architecture & performance modeling, high-level synthesis, and functional verification.

RISC-V is an open-source processor ISA. Given that RISC-V ecosystem is in a nascent stage, yet there is widespread interest in the industry to explore the usage of RISC-V for various use cases. A robust modeling eco-system is necessary for the successful adoption of a new ISA, and in this context, a need exists for SystemC modeling infrastructure for RISC-V ecosystem. In this presentation, we will talk about some essential components required for anyone trying to deploy SystemC based methodologies for their RISC-V project.

CircuitSutra is an Electronics System Level (ESL) design IP and services company, headquartered in India, having development centers in Noida and Bangalore, and serves the customers worldwide. It enables customers to adopt advanced methodologies based on C, C++, SystemC, TLM, IP-XACT, UVM-SystemC, SystemC-AMS, Verilog-AMS. Its core competencies include Virtual Prototype (Development, Verification, Deployment), Architecture & Performance modeling, Co-simulation, Co-emulation, HLS, SoC & System verification.


Webinar on Concurrent Electro-Thermal Analysis for PowerMOS Devices to Improve Performance and Reliability

Webinar on Concurrent Electro-Thermal Analysis for PowerMOS Devices to Improve Performance and Reliability
by Tom Simon on 02-20-2020 at 10:00 am

PTM-ET Sidecut view

PowerMOS devices play a major role in a variety of power converter and control circuits. Some examples of their applications include PMICs, or boost and buck converters. Often these are used in mobile and IoT devices to convert battery voltages to circuit operating voltages.

Due to their size and internal complexity PowerMOS devices have to be analyzed as hundreds or perhaps thousands of smaller devices, connected by a complex web of metallization. The first and most significant effect of this is non-uniform switching, with gate voltage varying across the device during device turn on. This in turn leads to Ids concentrating in some areas and not others.

Transient electrical analysis is capable of showing detailed gate voltages and current densities during the transitions, when devices typically experience their highest power draw. However, there is a second dimension to the problem that influences the electrical analysis – intrinsic device behavior is temperature dependent. As a result, device current values will rise as temperature rises, and the reciprocal is true, temperature will rise as more current flows. In the worst case, this vicious cycle may lead to temperature related device failure if the metal melts and shorts out the junction.

The thermal dynamics depend of the properties of the die, the surrounding package and even the board. Uncoupled electrical and thermal analysis will have difficulty converging on an accurate solution at each time step during circuit operation.

Analysis tools are needed to thoroughly model the internal behavior of these complex devices during their operation. Magwel’s PTM-ET tool combines joule heating in the metal interconnect and device junctions with other heat sources and sinks to determine device thermal behavior during circuit activity. PTM-ET concurrently simulates the interdependence between electrical behavior and thermal behavior. PTM-ET’s unique concurrent and dynamic simulation of devices in their packaging with user provided stimulus provides an accurate picture of circuit operation over time.

With the information from PTM-ET, designers can make sure that the optimal packaging has been selected, keeping costs down and also ensuring device reliability. Another advantage of electro-thermal co-simulation is that it can help identify hot spots in the device and guide the placement of sense or replica devices.

Magwel offers a free webinar reply covering the topic of concurrent electro-thermal analysis for PowerMOS devices with the goal of understanding impacts on device operation. The talk by Allan Laser, Magwel Field Application Engineer, discusses the challenges of modeling device behavior and predicting the effects of thermal and electrical factors. Magwel’s PTM® tools work off of device layout and foundry supplied intrinsic device models and produce a comprehensive look at PowerMOS devices.


Bridging the Gap Between Design and Analysis

Bridging the Gap Between Design and Analysis
by Mike Gianfagna on 02-20-2020 at 6:00 am

PCB design challenges

At the recent DesignCon 2020 in Santa Clara, Cadence introduced a new product, Sigrity Aurora. You won’t find a press release about this announcement. Rather, Brad Griffin, product management group director at Cadence, presented Sigrity Aurora in the theater at the Cadence booth. This one caught my eye and deserves some discussion. DesignCon has become a system-oriented event. Think chip, package, PC board and chassis. This breadth of problem-solving has created a large and very diverse show floor and technical program.  Relevant, real-world system design challenges are treated here. If you missed it, I highly recommend catching DesignCon next year.

Sigrity Aurora is a product that addresses the signal and power integrity (SI/PI) challenges associated with high-performance PCB design.  The question posed by Brad in his presentation was quite simple – how many times do you iterate between design and analysis in a PC board design?  That is, iteration between the PCB designer and SI/PI engineer? I can tell you from first-hand experience this kind of back-and-forth can waste a lot of time. If you’re not careful, you tie up a very valuable and scarce resource, the SI/PI expert.

The disparate expertise of a PCB designer and an SI/PI engineer contribute to the challenges here. So does a disparate tool flow with lots of conversions and mapping. In his theater presentation, Brad posed a way to address all these issues. What if you had a single vendor solution that could address: schematics, re-route signal and power integrity (SI/PI) analysis, placement, routing, in-design SI/PI analysis and final signoff?

It turns out Cadence has the product breadth to offer such a solution, and that was the essence of the announcement. Thanks to their Sigrity product line, Cadence has an extensive set of analysis engines to address tasks such as screening technology (impedance and coupling checks), return path checking, SI analysis (reflection and crosstalk) and PI analysis (IR drop).

And thanks to the new Sigrity Topology Explorer, pre-route and signal net extraction can be one to support what-if analysis.

The punchline of Brad’s presentation was that all of this capability can now be delivered through the popular Cadence Allegro PCB editing and routing technologies with Sigrity Aurora, which can read and write directly to the Allegro PCB database. A powerful set of analysis engines with a tight and efficient integration to a familiar implementation flow. The applications of such a tool are diverse and significant.  A few scenarios were illustrated in Brad’s presentation as follows.

Screening technology for electrical rules checks (no models required)

Impedance analysis screening:

  • Same requirements on stack-up
  • Global view of results more accessible
  • Look for outliers

Coupling analysis screening:

  • No SI model required
  • Electrical coupling is more accurate than geometrical methods
  • Global view of results

Return path screening:

  • Report nets with possible return path problems
  • Use a figure of merit such as return path quality factor
  • Return path visualization

Signal integrity technology (driven by industry-standard IBIS models)

Reflection analysis output:

Crosstalk analysis output:

Power integrity technology (driven by Allegro PowerTree technology)

IR drop analysis output (IR drop vision can be displayed as voltage, IR drop, or current density):

 

 

 

 

And pulling it all together, system-level simulation for signoff

If you’re engaged in high-performance PCB design, this comprehensive design flow is definitely worth a look.


Huawei Sends Unmistakable Message

Huawei Sends Unmistakable Message
by Roger C. Lanctot on 02-19-2020 at 10:00 am

Huawei Sends Unmistakable Message

A funny thing happened on the way to Barcelona for the annual Mobile World Congress (MWC) event scheduled for this week. The event organizer – the GSMA – exhibitors and attendees were forced to come to terms with the risk of contracting and spreading the coronavirus – COVID 19.

Several large European, South Korean, and U.S. telecommunications and technology companies made the earliest choice not to attend the event, while Chinese telecommunications and technology suppliers cautioned against hysteria. In the midst of a global technology trade war and the onset of 5G network technology promising massive commercial opportunities for upgrading network gear and handsets, LG and Ericsson were the first two companies to opt out of MWC.

Ericsson rival Nokia announced its own exit from the event days later and a cascade of cancellations followed. But it seemed that Chinese suppliers of equipment, with the exception of early exiter ZTE, were among the most hesitant to cancel – certainly not the first.

The slow decision of Huawei to cancel its participation in MWC, in particular, is an ominous coda to the termination of the 2020 event. Of all technology companies in the world, Huawei ought to have been the first to cancel, particularly considering the company has operations in Wuhan, in Hubei province at the epicenter of the epidemic – the impact of which is still unfolding.

Even after dozens of companies had opted out of MWC in the interest of the health and well-being of their employees and the public in general, Huawei appeared to stay the course. The company noted its own internal measures to quarantine employees and limit travel for those already affected by the virus. But, surely, the announced MWC departures of arch rivals Ericsson and Nokia might have served notice to senior management that it was time to shut down attendance plans.

Unique among all MWC attendees, Huawei was making its decisions while under a political spotlight facing allegations of being a threat to national security from the U.S.  In fact, the U.S. continued to raise these concerns in the past week with European partners during the Munich Conference – a point of contention with European allies less obsessed with potential security threats posed by Huawei.

But Huawei’s behavior during the MWC cancellation brouhaha was telling. Crass commercial interests were clearly prioritized over the safety of Huawei employees or fellow MWC exhibitors or show attendees. It is enough to bring to mind the spate of employee suicides at Foxconn – attributed to unbearable working conditions.

By its decision not to cancel its MWC participation Huawei sent a clear signal to the entire telecommunications and technology industry that commercial interests were paramount. The European Union may be standing by Huawei in the face of U.S. pressure to limit implementation of Huawei 5G equipment on the continent, but Huawei’s lack of concern over the potential spread of COVID 19 – death toll now approaching 2,000 – is a clear warning sign for all and a failure of Huawei’s management.