RVN! 26 Banner revised (800 x 100 px) (600 x 100 px)

An Objective Hardware Security Metric in Sight

An Objective Hardware Security Metric in Sight
by Bernard Murphy on 03-11-2020 at 6:00 am

Metrics

Security has been a domain blessed with an abundance of methods to improve in various ways, not so much in methods to measure the effectiveness of those improvements. With the best will in the world, absent an agreed security measurement, all those improvement techniques still add up to “trust me, our baby monitor camera is really secure.” Software security has made some progress on this front, as we’ll see. Hardware not so much. That’s a problem. Where’s the UL seal of security approval or something of that nature?

Now there’s hope that will change. The MITRE corporation has released its first documented taxonomy for Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) in hardware design.

A little background first. MITRE is a not-for-profit organization charged with managing federally funded R&D centers supporting a number of government agencies. Among their well-known contributions is their development and maintenance of a list of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures, which documents known cybersecurity vulnerabilities.  For example, the recent Meltdown attack has CVE-2017-5754 and Spectre has CVE-2017-5753 and CVE-2017-5715.

MITRE also maintains a related CWE list, which until recently only concerned itself with software weaknesses. For example, you can find buffer overflow weaknesses in this list. The software CWE is very well developed at this point, so much so that there are now over 100 products (including Synopsys’ Coverity) which analyze software for CWE weaknesses.

Intel has a very sophisticated security team (they’re a very big target for attacks) and have been working with MITRE for a while now to develop an equivalent weaknesses list for hardware design. Tortuga Logic has worked with Intel and were invited to contribute weaknesses they had found using their Radix software. So now what you’ll find in this starting list is a combination of Intel wisdom on what they know to be common weaknesses, plus Tortuga Logic wisdom on additional weaknesses they have found.

That’s a pretty darn impressive accomplishment for Tortuga Logic. This CWE list for hardware is likely to follow the same path as the list for software, becoming a definitive standard for best practices in hardware design for security. Even more important, Tortuga Logic Radix-* software is already setup to find many or most of these weaknesses.

Where will this lead over time? First, just as for software CWE, we should expect the list to grow over time. MITRE has a formal process to review and approve new submissions. I don’t imagine designers will want to check through each weakness one at a time in a security signoff (there are already ~840 weaknesses documented). Hardware security tools will be essential.

Second, where is this going in terms of enforcement versus defacto adoption? Jason Oberg (CEO of Tortuga Logic) doesn’t yet see any kind of enforcement, though I suspect government agencies and particularly the DoD will expect vendors to demonstrate they are clean.

Along those lines it is worth noting that the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has adopted CWE in their cybersecurity framework. It’s perhaps too early to talk about that also including the just-released hardware component, but it’s difficult to see why it wouldn’t ultimately be incorporated.

So unless you are going to ignore government business or build separate hardware for the government, get ready to have to prove CWE compliance at some point. And when the commercial industry is looking around for a security standard on which to hang its hat, I would guess the MITRE CWE will look like a pretty good place to start.


The Story of Ultra-WideBand – Part 3: The Resurgence

The Story of Ultra-WideBand – Part 3: The Resurgence
by Frederic Nabki & Dominic Deslandes on 03-10-2020 at 10:00 am

The Story of Ultra WideBand SemiWiki

In Part 2, we discussed the second false-start of Ultra-WideBand (UWB) leveraging over-engineered orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) transceivers, launching at the dawn of the great recession and surpassed by a new generation of Wi-Fi transceivers. These circumstances signed the end of the proposed applications – short-range very high data-rate (i.e., few hundred Mbps) wireless link – not of the technology. In fact, the history of UWB is a little bit more complex: by the time the high speed wireless UWB proposal was starting to fade, other UWB applications were thriving.

Starting in World-War II, the rapid development of microwave systems paved the way to the development of UWB systems. In the 1960’s the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) were working on pulse transmitters, receivers and antennas. These research projects were not pure academic research; there was indeed high incentive to develop impulse systems: UWB could provide ultra-high resolution, which could then be used for object positioning, characterization and identification. By the 1970’s UWB radars were developed mainly for military application. As research continued to progress, other applications were found and, at the end of 1990’s, multiple UWB radars were used for a wide range of applications: forestry applications, through-wall detection in urban areas, imaging for search and rescue operations and obstacle avoidance.

In order to really understand the appeal of UWB, we first have to grasp the time-frequency duality, well encapsulated by the Fourier Transform. In simple terms, this duality states that if you have an infinitely long periodic time signal, it will have an infinitely small bandwidth. On the other hand, if you have an infinitely short impulse signal, it will have an infinitely large bandwidth. In other terms, it means you can trade time for bandwidth. Why would you what to do that? There are multiple reasons for it but a very important one is to enable ultra-high-resolution positioning.

There are two basic ways to determine the distance between RF devices: you can either use the Received Signal Strength (RSS) or the Time of Flight (ToF) of the signal. RSS is a very simple technique to implement and can be used by any wireless transceiver, which explains why it is so widely used. However, it is severely limited in its accuracy: the perceived distance between two immobile objects will change according to obstacles in their direct path. As an example, if you have two devices placed 10 meters apart but separated by a brick wall, which provides 12 dB of attenuation, you would think that both devices are 40 meters away. ToF solves this issue. By measuring the time it takes to travel from one device to the other, you can precisely extract the distance between both objects. In our previous example, the speed of light will indeed be reduced inside the brick wall, but this will only induce an error of about 10 cm (due to the slight reduction in the speed of light in the brick).

ToF is clearly the way to go in order to accurately position objects in space. One drawback however is that you need to deal with the speed of light, which is pretty fast to say the least. In fact, the light takes only 333 picoseconds to travel 10 cm. If one wants to measure distances between objects with centimeter precision, sub-nanosecond accuracy will be needed in the system. The easiest way to achieve this accuracy is to send a signal that is very short in time, which requires, thanks to the time-frequency duality, an UWB signal.

The possibility of accurately measuring the distance with ToF explains to a large extent the resurgence of the UWB in the last few years. The market for accurate positioning is rapidly growing in multiple sectors and should continue to see a double-digit growth in the next years. Multiple companies are now jumping into the UWB bandwagon, the latest being Apple which equipped its iPhone 11 with an UWB chip, the U1, seemingly its own design. With the capability to implement Real-Time Location Systems (RTLS), UWB enables a wealth of new applications in a wide variety of markets: Industry 4.0, IoT, and vehicular.

As we saw in this article, time can be traded for bandwidth, which can advantageously be used to do positioning. But it can also provide other advantages. In Part 4, we will explore another key advantage to UWB in many wireless applications: very low latency.

About Frederic Nabki
Dr. Frederic Nabki is cofounder and CTO of SPARK Microsystems, a wireless start-up bringing a new ultra low-power and low-latency UWB wireless connectivity technology to the market. He directs the technological innovations that SPARK Microsystems is introducing to market. He has 17 years of experience in research and development of RFICs and MEMS. He obtained his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from McGill University in 2010. Dr. Nabki has contributed to setting the direction of the technological roadmap for start-up companies, coordinated the development of advanced technologies and participated in product development efforts. His technical expertise includes analog, RF, and mixed-signal integrated circuits and MEMS sensors and actuators. He is a professor of electrical engineering at the École de Technologie Supérieure in Montreal, Canada. He has published several scientific publications, and he holds multiple patents on novel devices and technologies touching on microsystems and integrated circuits.

About Dominic Deslandes
Dr. Dominic Deslandes is cofounder and CSO of SPARK Microsystems, a wireless start-up bringing a new ultra low-power and low-latency UWB wireless connectivity technology to the market. He leads SPARK Microsystems’s long-term technology vision. Dominic has 20 years of experience in the design of RF systems. In the course of his career, he managed several research and development projects in the field of antenna design, RF system integration and interconnections, sensor networks and UWB communication systems. He has collaborated with several companies to develop innovative solutions for microwave sub-systems. Dr. Deslandes holds a doctorate in electrical engineering and a Master of Science in electrical engineering for Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, where his research focused on high frequency system integration. He is a professor of electrical engineering at the École de Technologie Supérieure in Montreal, Canada.


Viewing the Largest IC Layout Files Quickly

Viewing the Largest IC Layout Files Quickly
by Daniel Payne on 03-10-2020 at 6:00 am

Skipper, Empyrean

The old adage, “Time is money”, certainly rings true today for IC designers, so the entire EDA industry has focused on this challenging goal of making tools that help speed up design and physical verification tasks like DRC (Design Rule Checks) and LVS (Layout Versus Schematic). Sure, the big three EDA vendors have adequate IC layout editors, however they are general purpose tools not really optimized for loading and viewing the largest IC designs that can now approach 1TB in size. This creates an opportunity for a focused point tool that excels at quickly reading an IC layout and does chip finishing tasks, which is what Empyrean has done with their Skipper tool.

WEBINAR: IP Integration Challenges of Complex SoC Platforms

I had a WebEx session last week with Chen Zhao, AE Manager at Empyrean to see what the Skipper tool was all about. Here’s a diagram showing what the input and output file formats are for Skipper:

Let’s say that you have a 200GB OASIS layout file that you need to load and browse, so with a general purpose IC editor just loading that file would take about 5 hours, however with Skipper the same file loads in just 30 minutes. Now that’s what I call automation. The following six IC design tasks all benefit from a fast tool like Skipper:

  1. Visualizing IC layout during DRC and LVS debugging.
  2. Point 2 Point (P2P) resistance analysis.
  3. Net tracing for VDD, VSS, Clock, etc. to find shorts and opens.
  4. Merging multiple IP blocks as part of chip finishing.
  5. Comparing two or more versions of the same layout.
  6. Focused Ion Beam (FIB) processing for defect analysis and circuit modification.

Using Skipper

There are three ways to use the Skipper tool, and each method is optimized for certain tasks.

  • Normal mode – reads the IC layout file into RAM at speeds up to 1 GB/s, depending on your hard drive being SSD or magnetic.
  • Cache mode – reads only parts of an IC layout file into RAM using an index file. Useful if you have cells that don’t need to be loaded.
  • Share mode – the second user to invoke Skipper on the same machine shares the first RAM image, allowing quickest viewing, typically ready within seconds for a 100+ GB file.

The first two modes sounded like a typical EDA tool, however the share mode was something that I’ve never heard about before, and just watching how fast the IC layout appears is quite exciting.

Let’s look at some scenarios for using Skipper starting with Normal mode where each of the following three users independently loads an IC layout, and each has to patiently wait:

Normal mode

With Cache mode User A creates an index file containing just the cells of interest, instead of the entire IC, so now User B and C will load only the pertinent cells, saving time.

Finally, with Share mode User A is the first to load the IC layout on Server 1, then both users B and C use the same Server 1 with Skipper and share the RAM image, allowing a near instantaneous viewing experience in just seconds.

Share mode

To get some speed perspective consider an actual IC design with a 1.6GB OASIS flattened layout, then here are the loading times to start viewing:

  • Normal mode: 110 seconds (at 14MB/s reading speed)
  • Cache mode: 20 seconds (5.5X faster)
  • Share mode: <1 second (100X faster)

Customer Examples

The following two tables compare the speed of Skipper versus another IC layout viewer on an FPGA design, showing improvements between 3X to 24X faster times:

FPGA benchmark times

For golden layout signoff using four of the Skipper capabilities a customer found that on designs ranging from 28nm to 7nm benefited from IP merge at 5X faster, and they have used Skipper on 100+ chips so far.

Customer Case

The final customer case involved a CAD group that integrated the Skipper features by using the C++ API in their flow, coding 200+ API features in just 3 months time.

API integration

Another way to control Skipper is with Tcl code, so that should keep your CAD guys happy.

Talking about customers, Empyrean has about 300 customers using Skipper, so it’s a proven technology, and a tool category worth taking a closer look at.

TSMC Symposium

If you live in Silicon Valley then consider attending the TSMC Symposium to watch what Skipper can do in real time, and talk with the experts at the Empyrean booth. On Wednesday, April 29th visit the Santa Clara Convention Center.

Summary

There’s a new category of EDA tool for speeding up your LVS/DRC debug times, and LVL checking, where the largest IC designs can be browsed most quickly using a point tool like Skipper, saving you time and improving productivity. Here’s a brief overview video showing Skipper in action:

Related Blogs


Achieving Design Robustness in Signoff for Advanced Node Digital Designs

Achieving Design Robustness in Signoff for Advanced Node Digital Designs
by Mike Gianfagna on 03-09-2020 at 10:00 am

Synopsys SemiWiki STARRC Webinar 1

I had the opportunity to preview an upcoming webinar on SemiWiki that deals with design robustness for signoff regarding advanced node digital designs (think single-digit nanometers). “Design robustness” is a key term – it refers to high quality, high yielding SoCs that come up quickly and reliably in the target system. We all know how difficult that can be at the cutting edge. Presented by Synopsys, the webinar explores strategies to make the process of hierarchical extraction and timing analysis (StarRC) for advanced node designs more accurate and efficient.

Hierarchical design is a key element in the “divide and conquer” approach to dealing with large amounts of complex design data. But there are some very real and challenging problems to overcome to use this technique effectively for advanced node designs. Here are just a few of them:

  • For extraction, you need to consider capacitance interactions across hierarchical boundaries. For example, near-the-block or over-the-block top level routes and block-to-block coupling
  • For process variation, you need to consider boundary nets that are impacted by nets running close to the boundary at the top level
  • Due to CMP, block instances may have unique layout environment densities that need to be accounted for
  • There may be multiple physical ports at the block level that map to one logical port. Extraction and timing flows need to correctly map physical and logical pins
  • The number of process, temperature, via resistance and other corners is exploding. You need a way to process all these cases efficiently
  • Also, regarding corner analysis, typical foundry data varies metal thickness in the same direction. This is not realistic in many cases, where metal thickness can vary across the chip. Not modeling this effect can miss timing violations

If you are engaged in advanced node design, I highly recommend attending this webinar. You will learn about approaches to deal with all of items above and more. You’ll learn about new approaches to optimize the run-time of the required tools as well. There is also a very useful Q&A session that dives into a lot more detail. All of this is covered in just over 30 minutes.

The webinar presenter is Omar Shah, who has 20 years of experience working on post-layout digital and custom design flows. Sign up now to attend this webinar. The webinar will be broadcast on Tuesday, March 24, 2020 from 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM PDT.  Hand sanitizer and face mask not required.

About StarRC
StarRC™ is the EDA industry’s gold standard for parasitic extraction. A key component of Synopsys Design Platform, it provides a silicon accurate and high-performance extraction solution for SoC, custom digital, analog/mixed-signal and memory IC designs. StarRC offers modeling of physical effects for advanced process technologies, including FinFET technologies at 16 nm, 14 nm, 10 nm, 7 nm, and beyond. Its seamless integration with industry standard digital and custom implementation systems, timing, signal integrity, power, physical verification and circuit simulation flows delivers unmatched ease-of-use and productivity to speed design closure and signoff verification.

Also Read:

Navigating Memory Choices for Your Next Low-Power Design

Hybrid Verification for Deep Sequential Convergence

Edge Computing – The Critical Middle Ground


Six Automated Steps to Design Partitioning for Multi-FPGA Prototyping Boards

Six Automated Steps to Design Partitioning for Multi-FPGA Prototyping Boards
by Daniel Nenni on 03-09-2020 at 6:00 am

Aldec Webinar SemiWiki

Before starting your next FPGA Prototyping Project you should catch the next SemiWiki webinar – “Six Automated Steps to Design Partitioning for Multi-FPGA Prototyping Boards”, in partnership with Aldec.

A significant portion of my  30+ years in the EDA industry has revolved around design verification with some form of FPGA prototyping, and the verification challenges facing SoC developers haven’t changed much in concept.

However, in today’s world, the cost of failure is much higher and the verification complexity has skyrocketed.  Today’s SoC designers have a plethora of available verification options from formal to simulation to emulation and FPGA prototyping, and most advanced design teams employ some amount of each of these techniques to get designs right before tapeout.  When verification speed is critical you are pretty much forced to include FPGA prototyping.  Emulation is the right choice for high speed debug up to about 1 MHz, but if you need to run at 20 MHz or 100+ MHz to cover your verification space, confirm video streams, or early hardware-dependent software verification, you should seriously look into to adding FPGA prototyping to your verification hierarchy.

This SemiWiki webinar is an excellent overview of the issues facing SoC designers who need to build FPGA prototypes that must be partitioned across multiple FPGAs. Once it is decided to use multiple FPGAs, whether for a single large design, or for multiple instances of the same design talking together, the top-level challenges are well documented: Partitioning, I/O interconnect between FPGAs, and clocking.

Partitioning, or deciding which parts of your design to put in each FPGA, is straight forward in concept, but the devil is in the details.  Simultaneously organizing the FPGA partitions to optimize FPGA utilization, minimize FPGA interconnect, and achieve the target performance is similar in some respects to the “Whac-A-Mole” game, you optimize one metric, and you knock one of the other metrics out of spec.  Oh, and to make your partition challenge more interesting, there’s Rents Rule.  This Rule says you can only put so much logic inside of so many pins, so figuring out how to “cut” your design across multiple FPGAs has limits beyond your control.

Then there’s the I/O interconnect between FPGAs.  The difficulty of this task will be design dependent, but if your design is “highly interconnected”, you may not have enough physical pins to accommodate your logical pins between the FPGAs.  But, don’t despair, pin-multiplexing techniques between FPGAs are available and well understood.  Ah, but, pin-multiplexing comes with a performance penalty, remember the Whac-A-Mole analogy?

Lastly, system clocks and resets must be carefully managed for FPGAs, and there are physical implementation differences between SoCs and FPGAs.  Keep in mind that the FPGA prototype is not the design, but it must “behave” like the design to be an effective design verification platform.  Getting your FPGA clocks to behave like your SoC clocks without introducing design anomalies can be a challenge, and doing a good job with clocks will determine whether or not you hit your FPGA performance targets.

FPGA prototyping is not for the faint of heart, but it can save a design respin or two.  In the early days of emulation, we used to say, “Emulation is hard, but its damn well worth the effort”.  So, my recommendation is to do everything you can to prepare for the project.  Like watching the SemiWiki webinar on this very subject.  And, similar to those familiar warnings: “don’t try this at home”, get someone on your team who has done this before, absolutely.

The Q&A should be especially interesting for this one. If you want to include your questions to my list add them in the comments section.

About Aldec
Aldec Inc., headquartered in Henderson, Nevada, is an industry leader in Electronic Design Verification. Established in 1984, Aldec offers patented technology in the areas of mixed-language RTL simulation, FPGA acceleration and emulation, SoC/ASIC prototyping, design rule checking, clock domain crossing analysis, requirements traceability and functional verification for military, aerospace, avionics, automotive and industrial applications. www.aldec.com


Technology Tyranny and the End of Radio

Technology Tyranny and the End of Radio
by Roger C. Lanctot on 03-07-2020 at 10:00 am

Technology Tyranny and the End of Radio

As technology consumers we make tradeoffs.

We let Google peer into our online activity and email communications and we even accept annoying advertisements tied to our browsing activity in order to access free email and browing. We tolerate smartphones with diminishing performance from Apple – even after Apple admits that the diminishing performance is deliberately-inflicted obsolescence to push us into our next iPhone upgrade. We accept Tesla’s privacy violations in exchange for an awe-inspiring driving experience and software updates.

Along the way we have surrendered our privacy and so much more. Now Tesla Motors may be asking us to surrender free over-the-air broadcast radio.

According to the notes describing the latest software update for owners of 2018-made Tesla’s and earlier (using MCU-1) the latest optional software update (which carries a $2,500 price tag but adds Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, and Twitch) removes AM/FM radio and SiriusXM. This is the often-cited downside of software updates – the potential to obtain improved system performance while sacrificing previously desirable functionality.

While Tesla’s decision only impacts older Tesla’s, it nevertheless highlights the strangely tortured relationship between the broadcast radio industry and Silicon Valley. The issue is a common thread traceable to Apple’s refusal to activate the FM chips built into its phones – and Google’s decision to ignore “terrestrial” radio as part of either Android Auto or Google Automotive Services.

Google, Apple, and Tesla have all turned their backs on the broadcast radio industry in spite of the wide reach of radio – a reach that exceeds that of television – and the fact that it is free, localized content ideally suited to consumption in a mobile environment. Tesla’s decision likely only affects a sliver of Tesla owners given the cost of the optional upgrade and the limited in-vehicle enhancements, but it has the ominous tinge of something more sinister.

The Tesla softwae update, focused as it is on adding streaming video AND a $9.99/month subscription – for owners not already on the company’s premium service tier – points to a streaming-only approach to content delivery. Just as satellite broadcaster SiriusXM felt compelled to offer an IP version of its content, Tesla appears inclined to shift all content delivery to IP reception.

The strategy makes sense for a company delivering cars on multiple continents with varying local broadcast protocols and metadata. Shifting radio reception to IP delivery vastly simplifies the in-dash configuration and, in the long run, may enable some hardware content reduction in the form of deleted tuners and antennas. This is particularly relevant in the run up to 5G adoption – a technology upgrade that will require the additional of multiple antennas.

Tesla vehicles in North America have always come with TuneIn – so, now, TuneIn becomes the preferred radio IP broadcast point of aggregation. In fact, it is quite possible that Tesla has leveraged user data from its own vehicles to determine that radio listening in its vehicles was sufficiently minimal to be worth risking some minor resistance.

More importantly, the software update removing the radio experience is optional. Maybe the offer is a test to determine the customer reaction to a tradeoff of streaming video and improved user interface performance with the sacrifice of broadcast radio for $2,500? Is the offer a bit of a market research project? Anything is possible from Tesla, which has altered its pricing and discounts on multiple occasions in response to market conditions.

But the inclination to delete radio is a popular behavior pattern in Silicon Valley where Google and Apple have treated broadcasters with disdain. Is this approach sustainable? Is it tolerable? Where can an outraged consumer turn to protest?  Will there be consumer outrage? Should there be? Is it time for an in-vehicle radio mandate to ensure that emergency communications – at least – can be broadcast into cars?

I’m not going to cry wolf. And I’m not going to play Chicken Little. I will say that the radio industry offers contextually relevant and reliable content delivery with a broad reach across a wide range of devices and listening environments. Deleting radio from cars – terrestrial or satellite-based – tears at the fabric of our social connectedness.

The marginal cost of preserving terrestrial broadcast connections – particularly in the context of radio’s ongoing global digital transition and the resilience of the medium during emergencies – ought to place this particular content reception experience in a non-delete category. Tesla doesn’t appear to share this view and Tesla is not alone. Once again, Silicon Valley is asking us to surrender one thing in exchange for another. Yesterday it was our privacy. Today it is the radio. Tomorrow it will be our freedom.


A Forbidden Pitch Combination at Advanced Lithography Nodes

A Forbidden Pitch Combination at Advanced Lithography Nodes
by Fred Chen on 03-06-2020 at 10:00 am

A Forbidden Pitch Combination at Advanced Lithography Nodes

The current leading edge of advanced lithography nodes (e.g., “7nm” or “1Z nm”) features pitches (center-center distances between lines) in the range of 30-40 nm. Whether EUV (13.5 nm wavelength) or ArF (193 nm wavelength) lithography is used, one thing for certain is that the minimum imaged pitch will be less than the wavelength divided by the numerical aperture of the corresponding wavelength tool (0.33 for EUV, 1.35 for ArF immersion).

1X Pitch
Under these conditions, the targeted minimum pitch, which will be labelled as “1X” here, is imaged as the interference of two beams, no more, no less. Furthermore, only certain illumination angles will allow this interference to occur; other angles will not produce any image at all, and only appear as unwanted background light.

2X Pitch
Commonly, a processor layout can also include 2X pitches, i.e., twice 1X, lines which are separated by twice the minimum distance. These naturally occur when design grids are used, with the grid spacing correlating to the minimum pitch. However, when 2X pitches are imaged with the same illumination as 1X pitches, there is not only a difference of image but also a difference of depth of focus. The reason is 2X pitches are imaged as the interference of three beams rather than two.

Figure 1. Two-beam interference for 1X pitch and three-beam interference for 2X pitch.

1X vs. 2X Depth of Focus
The difference of optical path lengths between the middle beam and the side beam is large for the three-beam case, while for the two-beam case, there is no middle beam and the two side beams have similar optical paths at the appropriate angle. Consequently, the depth of focus (DOF) is worse for the three-beam case compared to the two-beam case. On the other hand, at a non-optimum angle, even the two-beam interference will defocus poorly, for the same reason of different optical path lengths between the two beams (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Different optical paths, indicated by the gap between the vertical positions of the different wavefronts in red and blue, for three-beam interference (left) and two-beam interference with non-optimum angle (right).

However, for the 2X pitch, it is still possible to find different illumination angles that result in close to the two-beam interference. These correspond to different source points in the pupil (Figure 3). The 2X pitch points have x angular coordinates which are half those of the optimum points for the 1X pitch, and at the same time, sufficiently high y angular coordinates to ensure that only two diffracted beams are captured within the numerical aperture.

Figure 3. Different source points in the pupil give rise to the desired two-beam interference patterns, for the 1X case (left: pitch = 0.88 wavelength/NA; right: pitch = 0.98 wavelength/NA) and the 2X case (left: pitch = 1.76 wavelength/NA; right: pitch = 1.96 wavelength/NA). Moreover, for the lower k1, the best DOF is a limited subset of all possible two-beam interference source points.

The different illumination conditions indicate the mutually exclusive defocus tolerance. A single exposure cannot offer the same focus windows to both 1X and 2X pitches.

Subresolution Assist Features (SRAFs)
A widely suggested proposed solution [1] to accommodate both 1X and 2X pitches is to use subresolution assist features (SRAFs) on the 2X pitches to make them appear more similar to 1X features (Figure 4). This essentially suppresses the middle beam of the three beams, resulting in the growing of side lobes in between lines. Care must be taken, however, not to have these side lobes print. The 2X pitch isn’t changed, and the middle beam cannot be completely eliminated, so the focus window improvement will still be narrower than the 1X case. SRAFs would also be more vulnerable to stochastic effects due to their smaller sizes [2]. In situations where multiple patterning is already planned to be used to add or remove lines, the use of SRAFs to match 2X to 1X pitches would be unnecessary.

Figure 4. Subresolution assist features (SRAFs) make the 2X pitch look more like a 1X pitch. However, side lobe printing at the SRAF locations is a risk that cannot be neglected.

EUV Pupil Rotation Sensitivity
It has been reported [3,4] that the distribution of EUV illuminating source points rotates azimuthally about the optical axis at different points across the exposure slit, to a range of more than +/- 18 degrees (Figure 5); it is a natural outcome of using reflective ring-field optics [5]. As a result, illumination angles with best depth of focus are rotated to angles with inferior depth of focus. To avoid this undesired outcome, a large portion of the exposure slit would have to be excluded, resulting in effectively a much smaller exposure field width. To compensate, the scan across the wafer must stop at many more locations, reducing throughput substantially (Figure 6). Even worse, some chips are already very wide, almost taking up the entire maximum 26 mm field width. For these chips, the wide exposure width would have to be divided for multiple exposures with separately optimized illuminations. One patent from TSMC [6] even rotates different parts of the wide chip layout accordingly, in order to keep the single exposure.

Figure 5. Pupil rotation across slit (~ +/-20 deg) does not preserve depth of focus at all slit locations, as the illumination source points are displaced from optimum locations.

Figure 6. Pupil rotation with a full field would suffer from illumination rotation (left); this can be mitigated with a smaller exposure field width (right), which requires more stopping time.

How It Is Dealt With

The 1X vs 2X pitch incompatibility for depth of focus can be handled in four different ways:

(1) Design rule restrictions: Exclude the 2X pitch as forbidden. This is by far the simplest approach. But it may be too restrictive.

(2) SRAFs: This has been implemented successfully for DUV lithography, with care taken to not print the SRAFs in the process. For EUV, though, stochastic effects are aggravated, and pupil rotation is not addressed.

(3) Multiple Patterning: Splitting out 1X and 2X pitches can occur as part of multipatterning.

(4) EUV pupil rotation: The EUV pupil rotation would either limit the exposure field or require pre-rotation of parts of the layout, to avoid multiple patterning otherwise.

References

[1] J. G. Garofalo et al., Proc. SPIE 2440, 302 (1995).

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stochastic-printing-sub-resolution-assist-features-frederick-chen/

[3] R. Capelli et al., Proc. SPIE 9231, 923109 (2014).

[4] A. Garetto et al., J. Microlith/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS 13, 043006 (2014).

[5] M. Antoni et al., Proc. SPIE 4146, 25 (2000).

[6] US Patent 9091930, assigned to TSMC.

This article first appeared in LinkedIn Pulse: A Forbidden Pitch Combination at Advanced Lithography Nodes

Related Lithography Posts


TSMC’s 5nm 0.021um2 SRAM Cell Using EUV and High Mobility Channel with Write Assist at ISSCC2020

TSMC’s 5nm 0.021um2 SRAM Cell Using EUV and High Mobility Channel with Write Assist at ISSCC2020
by Don Draper on 03-06-2020 at 6:00 am

Fig. 1 Semiconductor Technology Application Evolution

Technological leadership has long been key to TSMC’s success and they are following up their leadership development of 5nm with the world’s smallest SRAM cell at 0.021um 2 with circuit design details of their write assist techniques necessary to achieve the full potential of this revolutionary technology. In addition to their groundbreaking device developments such as High Mobility Channel (HMC) they are the leading implementers of Extreme Ultra-Violet (EUV) patterning to enable higher yield and shorter cycle time at this advanced node.

Semiconductor technology evolution has been driven by the application landscape which in the current phase of High-Performance Computing (HPC), Artificial Intelligence (AI) and 5G communication requires the highest performance with limited power dissipation as illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Semiconductor Technology Application Evolution

This technology was described by TSMC at IEDM 2019, where they described their 5 nm process which uses more than 10 Extreme Ultra-Violet (EUV) mask patterning steps replacing three or more immersion mask steps each and High Mobility Channel (HMC) technology for higher performance. This technology has been in risk production since April of 2019 and will be in full production 1H2020.

The implementation of this technology for the development of high- performance SRAM bit cells and arrays was described by Jonathan Chang, et al at ISSCC2020.

The quantizing of FinFET transistor sizing continues to be a major challenge and forces all transistors in the high-density 6T SRAM cell to use only a single fin. The design is optimized through Design-Technology Co- Optimization (DTCO) to give high performance and density as well as high yield and reliability. SRAM bit cell scaling for 2011 to 2019 is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. SRAM bit cell scaling is shown for 2011 to 2019.

It can be noted that the cell size reduction rate from 2017 to 2018 to 2019 is much slower than the rate for preceding years 2011 to 2017, showing that SRAM cells have not been scaling at the same rate as logic in general. At IEDM 2019, the 5nm process was quoted to have 1.84x logic density improvement compared to 1.35x SRAM density improvement. Further area reduction utilizing Flying Bit Line (FBL) architecture is implemented for 5% area savings. The layout of the 5nm cell is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Layout of the high-density 6T SRAM bit cell.

For power reduction, a key approach is lowering the minimum operating voltage Vmin of the SRAM array. The increased random threshold voltage variation in this latest technology limits Vmin which in turn limits the opportunities for power reduction. The SRAM voltage scaling trend is shown in Fig. 4, where the blue line indicates the Vmin without write assist and the red line indicates Vmin with write assist, showing great benefit of write assist with each generation. It will be observed that the Vmin from 7nm to 5nm shows very little improvement, indicating that further power reduction must be gotten from improvements in write assist generation circuits. This article will describe the major write assist methods to enable lower Vmin in operation, negative bit line (NBL) and Lower Cell VDD (LCV).

Fig. 4. SRAM cell voltage scaling trend without write assist (blue line) and
with write assist (red line).

The SRAM cell schematic is shown in Fig. 5 showing contention during write between the PU and pass-gate transistor PG. A stronger PU transistor would yield a higher read stability, but it degrades the write margin significantly and results in a contention write Vmin issue.

Fig. 5. SRAM cell schematic showing contention during write between the
PU and pass-gate transistor PG.

The first method to improve the write Vmin is to lower the bit line voltage during write, called Negative Bit Line or (NBL). This method has been employed for several years, using a MOS capacitor to generate a negative bias signal on the bit line, but this write assist circuitry results in area overhead. Furthermore, a fixed amount of MOS capacitance induces over boosted NBL level for short BL configuration and may led to dynamic power overhead in short bit lines, as shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Fixed amount of MOS capacitance induces over-boosted NBL level
for short BL configuration and may lead to dynamic power overhead
avoided by the metal cap NBL.

The overboost and the MOS capacitor area issues can be avoided by using a metal capacitor-coupled scheme based on coupled metal tracks laid out on top of the upper metal of the SRAM array. To avoid the overboost, the metal capacitor length can be modulated with the SRAM array bit line length, saving dynamic power. Furthermore, the coupled NBL level can also be adjusted to compensate the loss of write ability induced by BL IR drop on the far-side bit cell.

The NBL enable signal (NBLEN) in Fig. 7 drives one side of the metal capacitor C1 negative which couples a negative bias signal at the virtual

ground node NVSS which then passes through the write driver WD and column multiplex to the selected bit line.

Fig. 7. The NBL enable signal (NBLEN) couples the configurable metal
capacitor C1 to NVSS.

The NBL coupling level with different bit line configurations, Fig. 8, showing that the configurable metal capacitor C1 can track with bit line length so that the variation of the coupling NBL level with different Bit line length can be mitigated.

Fig. 8. NBL coupling level with different bit line configurations showing the
longer 256bit bitline (blue) having an extended NBL boosted level.

The second method of write assist is to Lower the Cell VDD, (LCV). The conventional techniques of LCV require a strong bias or an active-divider to adjust the column-wise bit cell power supply during write operation, but these techniques consume a huge amount of active power across operating time. Pulse Pull-down (PP) and Charge Sharing (CS) techniques are two alternative solutions but precise timing is difficult for PP, so CS is proposed using metal wire charge sharing capacitors on top of the array as shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9. Charge Sharing (CS) for Low Cell VDD (LCV) for write assist using
CS metal tracks on top of the SRAM array.

In write operation, the LCV enable signal (LCVEN) goes high, it turns off the pull low NMOS (N1) to isolate the charge sharing capacitor C1 from ground. A column is selected by COL[n:0] to turn the header P0 off and isolates the array virtual power rail CVDD[0] from true power VDDAI. Because the metal wire capacitance scales along with the size of the bit-cell array, it also benefits the SRAM compiler design and provides a relatively constant charge sharing voltage level with varied BL configurations. The charge sharing level is determined by metal capacitance ratio of CVDD and the charge sharing metal track. Fig. 10 shows three LCV-VDD ratios are implemented for 6%, 12% and 24%.

Fig. 10. Three LCV-VDD ratios are implemented for 6%, 12% and 24%.
With write assist turned off, Vmin is constrained by write failure. Measured
results with Write Assist in Fig. 11 show NBL improves Vmin by 300mV and 24% LCV improves Vmin independently by over 300mV.

Fig. 11. Measured results of (a) metal capacitor-boosted Write Assist
WAS-NBL scheme and (b) metal charge-sharing capacitor WAS-LCV
scheme.

Performance of the 5nm process is enhanced by the High Mobility Channel with ~18% drive current gain shown in Fig. 12. This technology was described in detail at IEDM2019.

Fig. 12. High Mobility Channel (HMC) performance gain of ~18%.
This performance gain is exemplified by the high-speed SRAM array for
L1 cache application achieving 4.1Ghz cycle time t 0.85V shown in the
shmoo plot in Fig. 13.

Fig. 13. Shmoo plot of the HD SRAM array for use as a high performance
L1 cache showing 4.1 GHz at 0.85V. The measured results are based on the 135 Mb test chip shown in Fig. 14.

Fig. 14. 135 Mb test chip in 5 nm HK-MK FinFET with High Mobility
Channel (HMC) and 0.021um 2 SRAM bit cell.

In summary, the detailed circuit design techniques described here enable the product developer to get the maximum advantage from this leading technology. An important device development approach is to do Design- Technology Co-optimization (DTCO) between product/circuit designers and process developers responsible for product yield and reliability.

ALSO READ: TSMC Unveils Details of 5nm CMOS Production Technology Platform Featuring EUV and High Mobility Channel FinFETs at IEDM2019


The Story of Ultra-WideBand – Part 2: The Second Fall

The Story of Ultra-WideBand – Part 2: The Second Fall
by Frederic Nabki & Dominic Deslandes on 03-05-2020 at 10:00 am

The Story of Ultrawideband SemiWiki 1

Over-engineered to perfection, outmaneuvered by Wi-Fi
In Part 1 of this series, we recounted the birth of wideband radio at the turn of the 20th century, and how superheterodyne radio killed wideband radios for messaging after 1920. But RADAR kept wideband research alive through World War 2 and the Cold War. Indeed, the story of wideband radios was not over…

Continuing the story, the benefits of ultra-wideband (UWB) became more apparent as demand for wireless communications grew in the 1990’s. But commercial deployment of UWB systems required worldwide agreement on frequency allocations, harmonic and power restrictions, etc. As interest in the commercialization of UWB increased, developers of UWB systems began pressuring the FCC to approve it for commercial use. In 2002 the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) finally allowed the unlicensed use of UWB systems. The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) followed a few years later with their own regulations, unfortunately slightly different than the FCC regulation. Other regions followed, often aligning with FCC or ETSI.

UWB systems use short-duration (i.e. picosecond to nanosecond) electromagnetic pulses for transmission and reception of information. They also have a very low duty cycle, which is defined as the ratio of the time that an impulse is present to the total transmission time. Based on emission regulations set in the 2000s, an UWB signal is defined as a signal having a spectrum larger than 500 MHz. Most countries have now agreed on the maximum output power for UWB, defined as -41.3 dBm/MHz.

With regulations now in place, an alliance of companies started to form in order to standardize the physical layers and media access control (MAC) layers. In 2002 the WiMedia Alliance was formed which was a non-profit industry trade group that promoted the adoption, regulation, standardization and multi-vendor interoperability of UWB technologies. It was followed, in 2004, by the Wireless USB Promoter Group and the UWB forum.

In order to understand the choices made by these alliances, we should contextualize them. In 2002, WiFi was a relatively new technology. An 802.11b router, available since 1999, had a theoretical maximum speed of 11 Mbit/s using the 2.4 GHz frequency band. The 802.11a standard, also defined in 1999 and promising a theoretical maximum speed of 54 Mbit/s in the 5 GHz band, was not getting traction in the consumer space mainly due to its higher chipset cost. In 2003, the 802.11g standard was introduced, providing a theoretical maximum speed of 54 Mbit/s in the 2.4 GHz band. Even though the 802.11g standard proved to be a great success, the data rate was still limited by the crowded 2.4 GHz band, which was the backbone of wireless LANs at the time, and also microwave ovens and well-marketed (a.k.a. more trouble than they were worth) cordless phones!

It is with these limitations in mind that a new generation of UWB radios were proposed. With emission regulations now in place, it was hard to resist the promise of UWB-enabled high data rates. Indeed the 7.5 GHz of bandwidth allocated between 3.1 and 10.6 GHz by the FCC was an extremely valuable resource for wireless communication engineers. This is how specifications for short-range (i.e., few meters) file transfers at data rates of 480 Mbit/s were proposed based on UWB multi-band orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM). After a few years of development, the first retail product started shipping in mid-2007. This was very much an overengineered wireless radio that multiplexed in a relatively classical way multiple wide bandwidth carriers, and was not per se an impulse-based radio akin to the spark-gap radio.

Even though OFDM UWB was making a lot of noise at the time and the products were promising, its introduction to the market faced a perfect storm in the late 2000s. 2008 marked the beginning of the great recession, leading to a significant decline in retail sales of consumer electronics. In addition, while the different UWB alliances were working on novel products, the WiFi Alliance was not standing still. In 2006, after years of development and negotiations, they published the first draft of the 802.11n standard. Supporting the Multiple-Input and Multiple-Output (MIMO) concept to multiplex channels, it was developed to provide data rates of up to 600 Mb/s. Although the final version of the standard was not published before October 2009, routers supporting the draft standard started pre-emptively shipping in 2007.

The last nail in the coffin of OFDM UWB came from the technology itself. The complexity of the OFDM UWB transceiver RF architecture proposed at the time and its stringent timing requirements lead to a relatively high product cost and a lackluster power-consumption.

This combination of events and technologically over-engineered chipset signed the demise of the high-speed UWB radios. The leader in UWB chipsets at the time, WiQuest with 85% of the market in early 2008, ceased operations on October 31, 2008. The UWB forum was disbanded after failing to agree to a standard due to contrasting approaches with the WiMedia Alliance. The WiMedia Alliance ceased its operations in 2009 after transferring all their specifications and technologies to the Wireless USB Promoter Group and the Bluetooth Special Interest Group. The Bluetooth Special Interest Group, however, dropped development of UWB as part of Bluetooth 3.0 in the same year.

Unfortunately, almost exactly a century after the retirement of the first UWB systems based on spark-gap radios, this new iteration of UWB radios based on the OFDM radio architecture was falling out of favor. However, against all odds, the world would not have to wait another century before seeing a new and improved implementation of and UWB radio. Indeed, the spark-gap radio would become even more of an inspiration for this UWB resurgence, and this resilient nature of UWB will be discussed in the third part of this series.

About Frederic Nabki
Dr. Frederic Nabki is cofounder and CTO of SPARK Microsystems, a wireless start-up bringing a new ultra low-power and low-latency UWB wireless connectivity technology to the market. He directs the technological innovations that SPARK Microsystems is introducing to market. He has 17 years of experience in research and development of RFICs and MEMS. He obtained his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from McGill University in 2010. Dr. Nabki has contributed to setting the direction of the technological roadmap for start-up companies, coordinated the development of advanced technologies and participated in product development efforts. His technical expertise includes analog, RF, and mixed-signal integrated circuits and MEMS sensors and actuators. He is a professor of electrical engineering at the École de Technologie Supérieure in Montreal, Canada. He has published several scientific publications, and he holds multiple patents on novel devices and technologies touching on microsystems and integrated circuits.

About Dominic Deslandes
Dr. Dominic Deslandes is cofounder and CSO of SPARK Microsystems, a wireless start-up bringing a new ultra low-power and low-latency UWB wireless connectivity technology to the market. He leads SPARK Microsystems’s long-term technology vision. Dominic has 20 years of experience in the design of RF systems. In the course of his career, he managed several research and development projects in the field of antenna design, RF system integration and interconnections, sensor networks and UWB communication systems. He has collaborated with several companies to develop innovative solutions for microwave sub-systems. Dr. Deslandes holds a doctorate in electrical engineering and a Master of Science in electrical engineering for Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, where his research focused on high frequency system integration. He is a professor of electrical engineering at the École de Technologie Supérieure in Montreal, Canada.


COVID-19 Collateral Chip Collision – Will Fabs & Foundries Flounder?

COVID-19 Collateral Chip Collision – Will Fabs & Foundries Flounder?
by Robert Maire on 03-05-2020 at 6:00 am

Corvid 19 SemiWiki

Corona Fab Impact –
lower production/raise prices
Chip production supply chain may break
It could temporarily fix memory oversupply
Could it risk the fall roll out of next Iphone

The ” Two week tango” – Waiting games at fabs
When a highly specialized piece of semiconductor equipment misbehaves to the point where fab workers can’t fix it, they pick up the phone and call their friendly tool maker field service techs who show up relatively quickly and fix the issue with on site or nearby spare parts and get the tool back up very quickly.

That is until Corona……

We have heard that at least TSMC and Intel fabs have instituted a two week quarantine period for outside service people.

Which means a tech shows up to fix or install a tool and has to cool his or her heels in a local hotel for two weeks until they prove they are not infected.

What happens to the tool for those two weeks? It stays down or not installed….

When you have dozens of Dep or Etch tools, losing a few may slow things down but lose a litho tool, especially a highly complex, prone to problems, in need of lots of preventative maintenance EUV tool and it will ruin a fab managers day and month for sure.

As you can imagine in a fab with literally hundreds of tools, this could and will easily “snowball” into a major league problem.

Yields will fall, throughput will suffer, lots of wafers will wind up in the trash.

If we take the cost of a $7B fab and try to calculate the hourly operating cost….its a lot….The lost productivity will be a big number.

Installs will suffer as well
Aside from impacting ongoing production, the Corona related delays and problems also obviously impact new tool installs, perhaps even more so than ongoing operations.

If the tool maker has to send a team to help install a new tool and the team has to cool its heels at TSMC for two weeks , it means that those same experts can’t be at another fab on time to install another tool for the next customer and installs go to hell in a hurry.

Basically the amount of time spent waiting around in hotels and not installing or fixing tools will be a very significant productivity loss.

Its also not like you can hire a warm body off the street and have them install and EUV scanner the next day.  You can’t ramp up the number of service people over night.

If you think this is a good reason for remote diagnostics….think again.  There is no such thing as a semiconductor tool hooked up to the internet at TSMC.  No data connection whatsoever is allowed to the outside world lest it get hacked and secret recipes stolen or machines hijacked. The tools are in isolation with only highly supervised, hands on visits allowed

Could it push out Apples Iphone launch?
TSMC and Apple have developed a very predictable working rhythm to get Iphones launched every fall like clockwork.

TSMC orders new semiconductor tools for the next generation of Apple processors roughly Q4 of the prior year, they get installed in Q1, initial production starts in Q2 with full production in Q3 for the September or October launch in time for holiday sales.

We are currently in whats is likely peak new tool installation time at TSMC for the next gen semiconductor process.

If enough new tools installations get delayed, it could very easily push the whole schedule back.

Slow down the install of a few EUV tools today and suddenly you don’t have enough tools to do enough layers in high enough volume to make enough chips to go into enough Iphones for the fall launch dates.

The domino effect could be quite large….

AMD and Intel not immune either
You might think that Intel and AMD are not as impacted but AMD gets its parts from TSMC and Intel has the same Corona protocol as TSMC.  Intel has already been short of production and has also farmed out to TSMC.

Supply chain has lots of single points of failure
It usually never comes to light, but the semiconductor industry has a lot of single points of failure in its highly complex supply chain.

It was pointed out in painful detail how the trade spat between Korea and Japan got ugly quickly as Japan had a monopoly as one of those single points of failure in the supply chain of photoresist and certain chemicals.

If those sole suppliers are in the wrong place and the wrong time due to Corona it will ripple through the industry.

Though there are many chemicals and materials one such chemical is TMAH (TETRAMETHYLAMMONIUM HYDROXIDE ) used in silicon etch and other applications.  A nasty substance supplied mainly by China….home to Corona.

Maybe Corona will hit memory fabs
Maybe the semiconductor industry will get lucky and the oversupply of memory chips will get fixed by the Corona slow down hitting a few memory fabs and take them off line, putting supply and demand back in balance…… Idaho may luckily be the last place Corona will show up at.  Memory prices may get a boost…..

The stocks
We should start to see some pre-announcements of missing numbers over the next few weeks as the electronics food chain grinds slower and slower.  Though things will obviously recover, it make take a while for the supply chain to recover and in some cases the time will never be recovered .

The damage may be contained within the calendar year for some but maybe not all.  Those further down the food chain, the users of chips, such as Apple will likely see the most impact as they have the widest exposure to many, many parts and suppliers. Fabs and other complex manufacturers clearly will have issues.