Bronco Webinar 800x100 1

Webinar on Detecting Security Vulnerabilities in SoCs

Webinar on Detecting Security Vulnerabilities in SoCs
by Tom Simon on 04-06-2020 at 10:00 am

Secure development Lifecycle for SOCs

As more security related capabilities are added in hardware it is changing the effort required to ensure that SoCs are not prone to attack. Hardware has the initial appeal of creating physical barriers to attack, yet it presents its own difficulties. For one thing, a flaw in a hardware security feature is much harder to fix in the field, which makes it an appealing target for bad actors. Hardware related attack surfaces offer a larger ROI and hackers know that because they are hard to fix, they can exploit them for a longer period of time.

A webinar titled “Detecting Security Vulnerabilities in a RISC-V Based System-on-Chip” by Dr. Nicole Fern of Tortuga Logic covers the issues of SoC security by offering several examples of vulnerabilities that have been discovered, the various ways that SoCs can be compromised and approaches that can be used to improve the process of development and testing SoCs so that security issues can be significantly reduced.

Nicole goes over the ‘Nail Gun’ attack that allows code running on an insecure core to accomplish privilege escalation on another core by activating a debug mode strictly through software. No physical access to the system is required. Another of her examples is a boot tampering attack on Cisco routers where the bit-stream for an FPGA was stored in unprotected memory and could be modified by attackers. She cited a documented BLE software stack issue with TI chips that allows unsecure code to process Bluetooth packets.

To prevent hardware related attacks Nicole discusses three system level security goals. Each block or IP must not contain vulnerabilities of its own. Next, the process of SoC integration must not introduce vulnerabilities. Examples of this are improper management of debug and test interfaces and accidentally grounding a privilege bit in a peripheral interface.  Lastly, software configuration and usage of hardware features must be correct. For instance, assets can be mismanaged during secure boot, MPUs can be misconfigured, or on-chip bus interfaces can be improperly programmed.

Nicole advocates a Secure Development Lifecycle (SDL) for hardware to help avoid security related problems in finished designs. At each stage of SoC and system development there are corresponding steps that should be taken. At the root of any security plan is threat modeling and creating a security specification. Naturally this is followed by security verification.

These steps often rely on in-house or consultant security expertise. There are several repositories of known vulnerabilities such as Mitre CVE and CWE that provide essential information for securing SoCs. At each step there needs to be design and architecture review. Formal verification methods can be applied. Simulation based and directed negative testing approaches can be used. Lastly, post silicon penetration testing is necessary. These approaches have some shortcomings which Nicole discusses in the webinar. She concludes that there need to be ways for guided security requirement creation from weakness databases, such as CWE, that are approachable for non-experts.

At the end of the webinar Nicole details how the Tortuga Logic Radix technologies offer a method that can be used by existing design teams to efficiently and effectively execute an SDL for hardware. Radix offers both simulation and emulation to detect potential risks in design. She makes the important point that, unlike functional verification that cares about data values, security simulation cares about data flow, transmission and access.

The webinar is an eye-opening look at how SoC security can be compromised even if the best hardware logic design methods are used. Security design is in many ways orthogonal to functional design. At the very least it represents another perspective of what must be considered during the design process. Anyone who cares about SoC based system security should view the webinar which will be on Tuesday April 14th at 10AM PDT.


What’s New in CDC Analysis?

What’s New in CDC Analysis?
by Bernard Murphy on 04-06-2020 at 6:00 am

Validating assumptions in CDC constraints

Synopsys just released a white paper, a backgrounder on CDC. You’ve read enough of what I’ve written on this topic that I don’t need to re-tread that path. However, this is tech so there’s always something new to talk about. This time I’ll cover a Synopsys survey update on numbers of clock domains in designs, also an update on ways to validate CDC constraints.

First the survey, extracted from their 2018 Global User Survey. There are still some designs, around 31%, using 5 or less clock domains. The largest segment, 58% have between 21 and 80 domains. And as many as 23% have between 151 and a thousand domains. Why so many? Some of this will continue to be thanks to external interfaces of course.

Clearly a lot will be a result of power management, running certain functions faster or slower to tradeoff performance against over-heating. And a growing number, prominent in really large designs such as datacenter-bound AI accelerators, are so large that it is no longer practical to try to balance clock trees across the whole design. Now designers are using GALS techniques in which local domains are synchronous, and crossings between these domains are effectively asynchronous.

All of which means that CDC analysis, like everything else in verification, continues to grow in complexity.

Turning to constraints, I’ve mentioned before that CDC depends on having info about clocks, naturally, and the best place to get that info is from SDC timing constraints. You have to build those files anyway for synthesis, timing analysis and implementation. Might as well build it right in one set of files and use that set everywhere, including for CDC. That’s a lot trickier than it sounds for a CDC tool if you’re not already tied into the implementation tools. Getting the interpretation right for Tcl constraints can be very challenging. Not a problem for Synopsys of course.

Along those lines, it’s a lot easier to figure out if one clock is a divided-down or multiplied-up version of another if you understand the native constraints. Which helps a lot with false errors. No need to report problems between two clocks if one is an integral multiple of the other.

Other prolific generators of false errors are those pesky resets, configuration signals and other signals which switch very infrequently, usually under controlled conditions allowing sufficient time for the signals to settle. In fact, at Atrenta we found that in many cases these could be the dominant source of noise in CDC analysis.

Static analysis has no idea these signals are in any way special. They see them crossing from one clock domain to another and assume they have to be synchronized like every other signal. That would be a waste in most cases – of power, area, latency, something that doesn’t need to be wasted.

So we invented quasi-static constraints (honestly I don’t know if we truly invented the concept, I just don’t know that we didn’t), to type signals that could be ignored in CDC analysis. These have no meaning in implementation so won’t be cross-checked, but they are amazingly effective; noise rates plummet. There’s just one problem. Because they’re not cross-checked elsewhere, if you mislabel a signal as quasi-static, you could miss real errors.

Synopsys figured out a way to cross-check meta-constraints like these. They convert them into SVA assertions which you can then pull into simulation regressions to check that the claim really holds up. This is diagrammed in the opening figure. Pretty neat. I think Synopsys really has CDC verification covered thanks to this extension. Click here to read Synopsys’ white paper.

Also Read:

SpyGlass Gets its VC

Prevent and Eliminate IR Drop and Power Integrity Issues Using RedHawk Analysis Fusion

Achieving Design Robustness in Signoff for Advanced Node Digital Designs


I Cancelled My Flight

I Cancelled My Flight
by Roger C. Lanctot on 04-05-2020 at 10:00 am

I Cancelled My Flight

Three weeks in to the current period of COVID-19 “social distancing” guidelines I have cancelled already-booked flights to Barcelona (cancellation of Mobile World Congress), Austin, Tex. (cancellation of SXSW), and London (cancelled company meeting). So it seemed logical that I’d cancel my flight to San Diego for the now-cancelled International Bridge Tunnel Turnpike Association gathering, but for some reason I toyed with the idea of taking the flight on a lark.

I finally decided to cancel this flight this morning after speaking with a friend Friday about my thought process. My friend proceeded to disabuse me of the notion that taking such a flight would have been anything other than a life-threatening proposition. He went on to justify his stance by sharing multiple stories of friends and family currently suffering under either positive COVID-19 diagnoses or hospitalized with debilitating symptoms.

Oddly, I had already questioned the wisdom of at least two colleagues pondering international flights – one for a vacation to Puerto Rico and one for a wedding in the Dominican Republic. The vacation was delayed. The wedding was cancelled. As I told both of these colleagues in an irritatingly raised voice: “No one is flying anywhere!” Yet, I too, was “weighing my options.” Sad.

Thank goodness for my friend. My friend described how he was driving from Detroit to Dulles Airport, located near me, to meet his daughter returning from an exchance program in Nigeria. Turns out the program, originally scheduled to be completed in May, was terminated prematurely a few weeks ago, a termination that was quickly followed by a closing of the only available airport. Cue terror and a call to the State Department.

Moreover, this friend reminded me what I already knew from stories seen on TV, heard over the radio, or read about in the newspaper: that anyone with severe enough COVID-19 symptoms as to require hospitalization had to be prepared to say their final good-bye’s when checking in at the hospital – as no visitors would be allowed. This is not to say that hospitalization is a for-sure death sentence, but, by now, we have all become acquainted with the many tales of patients dying alone or left with a tenuous Facetime lifeline in their final hours.

For me, the lesson was that everyone should, like me, reach out to friends and acquaintances to catch up on events and spread good will and empathy at this stressful time – but, mainly, to get a sanity check. My COVID-19 prescription is for you to call your friends until you find one – or more – with a personal experience of a friend, co-worker, or family member touched by COVID-19. Only in this way can we begin to come to terms with the magnitude of the crisis in this time of disconnection.

SOURCE: Strategy Analytics survey shows between 20% and 25% of respondents, globally, report knowing someone personally diagnosed with COVID-19.

It’s essential that we all reach out. We need to make an effort to connect to overcome and bridge our social isolation. The mayhem unfolding in some hospitals is happening out of sight, the struggling companies and their workers are reduced to statistics. Reach out.

From reaching out myself I have learned of the companies in the automotive industry immediately impacted by shuttered factories as they only get paid as vehicles are made. Some companies get paid when vehicles are sold. Some companies only begin making money once vehicles are being used.

Vehicles are no longer being made, sold, or used. Revenue is not flowing. Governments are stepping in to help.

American citizens are complaining that their rights are being abused under the current social distancing and stay at home orders. Businesses are suing to re-open their doors. The U.S. President laments the cure – social distancing and stay at home – being worse than the illness.

There are many reasons for these measures being taken mainly by local governments. Reach out and find someone you know who has been touched by the disease, someone you trust, and get your own personal firsthand account. I guarantee that after having such a conversation you will no longer be in doubt as to the severity of the crisis and the appropriateness of the response.

One of the stories that caused me to consider actually taking flight appeared on Morning Edition on NPR. A volunteer medical courier shared his story of a flight with five flight attendants and two passengers – himself plus one other.

The story told me two things. First, that the $50B Federal relief package recently signed in to law requires that the airline beneficiaries must continue to fly to all of the cities to which they flew prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. And, second, that the only people flying were those with urgent business – i.e. this is no time to be flying for fun.

The experience of cancelling my fourth flight since the arrival of COVID-19 also reminded me that nothing will be the same again. We have a new normal. Three weeks in to our current social isolation I am seeing barriers being erected in retail outlets to protect checkhout clerks.

SOURCE: Checkout counter with barrier at Lowe’s

Let’s face it. This is the new normal. There will be many accommodations. But if we want to see what those future accommodations are going to look like, we are going to have to stay indoors as much as possible to live to see that day.

In fact, the government turned up the prophylactic recommendations this week suggesting that all people wear facial masks in public. I can report that this recommendation is not being univerally adopted, but I am definitely seeing more handwashing and use of gloves.

So, please, find a friend touched by COVID-19. It shouldn’t be too hard. In fact, it is getting easier to do by the day. Think about the lag time between infection and the appearance of symptoms. Think about the stories of sufferers describing their inability to breath – like being under water. Think about the loved ones saying good-bye at the doors of the hospital, possibly for the last time. Think about yourself.

I have one more flight left to cancel – to Tel Aviv (for now-cancelled Ecomotion). I’ll probably leave this cancellation to the last minute just like the flight I cancelled this morning – and I’ll flirt with the idea of actually flying. But I won’t fly, because life is too short and precious and flying today is too dangerous. Even leaving your house is dangerous today.


UPDATE: Everybody Loves a Winner

UPDATE: Everybody Loves a Winner
by Mike Gianfagna on 04-05-2020 at 9:00 am

Picture1 4

Building a successful startup is hard, very hard. Creating a new category along the way is even more difficult. Those that succeed at both endeavors are quite rare. This is why an upcoming ESD Alliance event is a must-see in my view. The event is entitled “Jim Hogan and Methodics’ Simon Butler on Bootstrapping a Startup to Profitability”. Originally scheduled as a live event at Semi headquarters in Milpitas, CA, this event is now a webcast scheduled for May 1, 2020 from 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM PDT. The event is free.

There’s a lot packed into that title. First, the challenge of bootstrapping a startup. Without the benefit of large sums of other people’s money up-front, getting things off the ground is daunting. Getting the enterprise to profitability is even more difficult. The event will also explore how Methodics created a new category, IP Lifecycle Management (IPLM) along the way. I can tell you from first-hand experience that creating a new category is difficult if you are a large, successful public company. Doing it as a startup is impressive.

I’ve been through many complex SoC design projects that contain IP from a wide variety of sources, both inside and outside the enterprise.  Ensuring that all the moving parts are of high quality, with the right configurations, versions and firmware attached is clearly a requirement for success. Yet, many organizations struggle with some aspect of this process at least once on every project.  Sometimes more than once. I suspect SemiWiki’s readership can share plenty of stories on this topic.

So, hearing about a holistic approach to this problem is definitely worth the time as well. Beyond the education value of this event, there will be entertainment value. I’ve been to many of Jim Hogan’s interview events over the years. Jim has a casual and disarming style that gets folks to actually be themselves and offer new and meaningful insights. Whether he’s exploring artificial intelligence, the latest chip design paradigm or IP management, a Jim Hogan hosted event will be memorable.

I’m particularly interested in learning more about how Methodics did several difficult-to-impossible tasks successfully from Simon Butler. As a co-founder of the company, I suspect he has some great stories.

So, if you want to learn how to build a successful startup, create a new category or do a better job with your next SoC design, you can get it all on Friday, May 1, 2020 from 11:00AM – 12:00PM. You’ll also be entertained and be able to ask questions of Jim and Simon as well. You can register for the webinar here. Don’t miss this one.

Also Read

Avoiding Fines for Semiconductor IP Leakage

Webinar Recap: IP Security Threats in your SoC

WEBINAR: Generating and Measuring IP Security Threat Levels For Your SoCs


Can a Pandemic Stop the Apocalypse?

Can a Pandemic Stop the Apocalypse?
by Roger C. Lanctot on 04-04-2020 at 8:00 am

Can a Pandemic Stop the Apocalypse

The negative impacts of the coronavirus, COVID-19, on the automotive industry continue to radiate out from the closure of factories and dealerships (for vehicle sales, while service operations continue) to employee furloughs and plunging stock prices. At the same time, the global pandemic has begun to undermine the investment rationale behind four core industry-wide initiatives collectively described as “CASE” or “ACES:” i.e. Connected, Autonomous, Shared, and Electrified driving.

These four sectors are frequently identified at industry conferences – remember when we used to attend those? – as the strategic underpinnings of the future of transportation. Even as the mantra of ACES was being embraced by the industry, though, investment bankers were grumbling at the capital expenditures that were flowing to these R&D and trial endeavors that were producing nothing but rivers of red ink.

Those investment bankers may now be breathing heavy sighs of relief as, one by one, the ACES activities of OEMs appear to be falling by the wayside as enthusiasm wains in the face of pandemic impacts or regulatory authorities lose their nerve. The first “horseman” to fall was autonomous vehicles.

Car companies working on autonomous vehicle solutions, such as General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Daimler, and others, have discovered that making a serious effort in AV development can easily require $250M or more per quarter in non-recoverable expenses. Worse yet, this effort is both technology and labor intensive. There is no easy way to rein in these costs and the development activity takes place in a high risk environment that can literally put lives at risk. Just ask Uber.

It is perhaps no surprise that weeks ago most AV operators in the U.S. – which were using paired human safety drivers and driver monitors, terminated their operations for the duration of the “social distancing” enforcement guidelines in the U.S. The valuations of these companies have correspondingly begun their own curve flattening led by Waymo.

Soon after the shut down of these AV activities reports of financial stress began to emerge from peer-to-peet car sharing operators Turo and Getaround. Only yesterday came news that Penske Corporation was shutting down its Penske Dash car subscription service. Can Free2Move’s U.S. operations be far behind? Does anyone want to share a car these days?

Some analysts thought car share and bike and scooter share operators would benefit from an operating environment in which public transportation was either not available or severely curtailed. The reality has been that all sharing has been severely impacted (weeks ago scooter operators Bird and Lime exited the European market) by an environment suddenly bereft of leisure travelers, high volumes of pedestrian traffic, or social activity of any kind. Stay at home government guidance has almost completely extinguished the sharing economy.

Next to fall was electrification as gasoline prices plunged around the world (below $2.00 in the U.S.) and the U.S. government lowered fuel efficiency targets. European car makers, too, have renewed their opposition to aggressive EU CO2 reduction mandates targeting vehicle emissions. Looks like people have generally lost interest in being environmentally conscious.

The last horseman standing is connectivity. It may well be that connectivity is the sole surviving core automotive technology iniitiative that survives the COVID-19 scourge. The industry may abandon autonomous vehicles, shared vehicles, and electrification – but connectivity seems bound to endure.

It is not as if the motivation doesn’t exist for de-prioritizing connectivity. Car companies committing to connecting their cars know they are taking on a nine-figure investment with an uncertain return. But compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars require to support autonomous vehicle, electric vehicle, or shared vehicle development, $100M to set up and maintain a connected vehicle platform looks like a rounding error.

The automotive industry is poised on the threshold of 5G adoption which will bring vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-infrastructure, and vehicle-to-pedestrian communications into being. Higher speed, longer range, and more reliable vehicle connections will set the stage for advanced cybersecurity and software update solutions as well as improved vehicle location information and collision avoidance.

Not even COVID-19 can stand in the way of the movement to connect cars. For the foreseeable future, the pandemic will continue to wreak havoc with autonomous, electrification, and sharing. Car connections will survive even this apocalypse.


The Great 2020 Mobility Rethink

The Great 2020 Mobility Rethink
by Roger C. Lanctot on 04-03-2020 at 10:00 am

The Great 2020 Mobility Rethink

General Motors’ announced shut down of the Maven car sharing service was hardly a surprise, especially coming in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. By the time of its demise, Maven was only operating in four or five cities, down from a high of 17. The venture was doomed from the start, and its departure is a cautionary tale for Toyota, Renault, BMW, Daimler and other auto makers flirting with car sharing.

General Motors told the Automotive News that it learned a lot from Maven and its sister division Maven Gig. The group did collect vehicle data to track charging and usage of Bolt EV’s on the Maven Gig platform and GM got its first real taste of running a connected fleet of vehicles and directly managing a B2C service.

The reason that Maven was doomed from day one is the fact that it was born an orphan. Maven was never part of existing GM operations. Though run by executives drawn from GM’s fleet division it was not part of GM’s fleet operation. Though leveraging OnStar’s connectivity and call center, Maven relied on its own add-on hardware for vehicle access and customer service was separate from OnStar.

Stunning to me from day one was the introduction of the Maven brand itself. Though vaguely clever, GM’s marketing executives must have realized that it would take millions of dollars to build the Maven brand into a recognizable corrolary brand under the General Motors umbrella.

By opting for the Maven brand and standing up a separate team outside of any existing division and without sufficient marketing support or C-level support within the larger organization, Maven was left to subsist on its own with no particular direction. What was Maven’s purpose in life? Was it intended to attract new customers to the brand? Was it intended to open new markets? Was it a platform to trial new technologies and business models? Was it intended to fend off competitive threats? Was it intended to supply cars to Uber/Lyft/Via drivers? Was it intended to provide loaner cars for dealers – potentially displacing existing Uber/Lyft or rental car providers?

None of this was clearly defined. Making matters more confusing was the failure to integrate the Maven strategy with the $500M investment in Lyft – that is now looking more ill-conceived than ever.

A Lyft-Maven one-two punch might have been a powerful launch statement for the car sharing offer. GM could have announced its $500M Lyft investment along with the Maven launch with incentives for drivers to use Maven vehicles at attractive rates. Needless to say that didn’t happen.

Neither Maven nor Lyft brands were leveraged on the OnStar platform or as part of GM’s Global Connected Consumer group, within which OnStar resides. There might have been a scenario where every GM vehicle was enabled for Lyft or Maven activation. In fact, the OnStar brand – in which GM has invested hundreds of millions of dollars over more than two decades – could have been repositioned as a mobility brand.

Such a strategy would have superseded Elon Musk’s plans to launch Tesla Network automated shared vehicles via over-the-air software update. OnStar could have begun its evolution and return to being a brand-defining service for General Motors. But, no, that didn’t happen either.

Without a plan to leverage Maven through GM’s fleet operations, its dealer operations, or as a brand builder and customer finder, Maven meandered into irrelevance and found its meaning as a cost center – a science experiment. Maven couldn’t absorb large volumes of off-lease vehicles; it couldn’t pioneer new car models to be shared from splashy city center showrooms; it couldn’t redefine car sharing.

Maven was a careful, cautious, foray into an arena dominated by local community supported car sharing operators, pure plays, and rental car companies. Rental car companies, in particular, kept the pressure on in what is a low margin marketplace.

Car sharing is a capital intensive business requiring millions of dollars to support wheels on the street. Add in the logistical element of cleaning, insuring, repairing, recovering, and paying for parking and parking infractions and there is precious little cash left over.

The final blow for car sharing operators lacking patience is the inability to drive volume. Yandex is one of the few operators in the world that has found the magic wand to drive customer interest in shared cars – super cheap rates. For GM, such a strategy would only stimulate the bleeding. It would also undermine the company’s primary business: selling cars.

The challenge for car companies is to aggressively promote car sharing when what they really want to do is sell cars. Car companies spend billions of dollars on advertising and incentives to sell cars. Car sharing is a hobby and it is a hobby that, should it become too successful, could threaten the primary business.

In the end, it all comes back to Tesla. Tesla has already solved this problem. Tesla Network has car sharing and ride hailing baked into its long-term plans as an inherent function built into the vehicle. Car sharing and ride hailing, when available directly from Tesla, won’t require additional hardware, a new organization or a new brand – it will simply be an extension of the Tesla value proposition.

This was the opportunity presented by Maven – to be an inherent part of all GM vehicles and an integrated part of the GM value proposition – perhaps under the OnStar brand. This is the core of the missed opportunity.

The shuttering of Maven is an ominous note to be struck within the wider GM family. GM is burning $250M/quarter at its Cruise Automation self-driving car unit in San Francisco.

GM has its own, in-house automated driving initiative in Super/Ultra Cruise. Super Cruise and Ultra Cruise Level 2 automated driving features are already being deployed on GM vehicles – with 22 models expected to be outfitted with the technology by the end of 2021. Super and Ultra Cruise are being developed with unique mapping and localization technology unlike anything Cruise Automation is working on.

GM has clearly indicated that the Cruise Automation path to market is not an aftermarket kit or fitment on mass produced, consumer-oriented vehicles – it is a full-blown robo-taxi. GM’s in-house team – at the Warren Tech Center – is already delivering a value proposition, Super Cruise, for which consumers are paying…happily.

By comparison, Cruise is looking like an expensive distraction and, like the $500M Lyft investment, a gamble. As a separate operation, like Maven, Cruise may find itself cut loose if not shut down – though Softbank, Honda, and other investors will have a say. With the termination of Maven, GM has shown, once again, it is able to cut its losses. In the time of COVID-19, though, we are starting to get close to the bone.


Filling the ASIC Void – Part 2

Filling the ASIC Void – Part 2
by Mike Gianfagna on 04-03-2020 at 6:00 am

Screen Shot 2020 03 24 at 5.00.49 PM

I concluded my last post on the topic with an inventory of the key attributes needed to fill the ASIC void created by the relentless consolidation in semiconductors. There were five items, as follows:

  1. Design and manufacturing expertise in a market that requires custom chips
  2. Differentiating IP and the skills to integrate it into a customer’s design
  3. A solid design methodology and the discipline to enforce it
  4. A willingness to partner with the customer – a shared vision for success is key
  5. A solid track record of successful bring-up of designs in target systems

I also mentioned Presto Engineering and their acquisition of DELTA Microelectronics. What does that combination do for the ASIC ecosystem? How does this company fit? I took a look at Presto through the lens provided by the list, above. Here’s what I found…

If you visit the Presto Engineering website, you’re greeted with “Your Trusted Microelectronics Partner”. That sounded like the sentiments of point 4, above. Probing a bit more, I found an informative, under two-minute video on Presto’s OCEAN Platform.

OCEAN is a rather sophisticated web-based system that manages all phases of chip logistics tracking and development, from tapeout to volume manufacturing. Full transparency, proactive management and risk-reduction. I encourage you to watch this video if you have a couple of minutes. This is sounding a lot like point 4. You can also learn more about Presto’s supply chain management capabilities here. In my travels through the Presto website, I found a combination of capabilities from both Presto and DELTA. It appears that they are keeping the DELTA brand. The combined offering provided some very helpful perspectives.

Let’s circle back to point 1. You can find good information about IoT and security applications on Presto’s website. These are both markets that clearly need custom silicon. There is also a pedigree in RF and mixed-signal solutions at Presto. This expertise allows them to offer sensor capabilities for IoT, in addition to low-power design and wireless communications, key ingredients for this market. You will also find expertise on contactless payment cards. This technology utilizes near-field communication (NFC), energy harvesting and security, all areas that need custom silicon and are growing rapidly.  Another high-growth area is automotive and autonomous driving.  Presto also participates here, both in terms of advanced testing to support automotive qualification and sensor technology for autonomous driving, I would say point 1 is well covered.

Probing on point 2, I found relevant digital and analog IP. Everything from processor cores, DES/triple DES processors and LVDS I/Os to PLLs, data converters, sensors, battery monitors and more. These all tie back to the ASIC design services provided by Presto, through DELTA. Point 2 appears to be covered as well.

On to point 3, design methodology. There’s a lot to say here. The site talks about a rigorous specification process, supported by proven IP, design reviews and careful verification and testability planning throughout. I know all these items are quite important to a successful project and I was glad to see this discussion. The methodology doesn’t stop at design, also a good thing. Foundry management, parametric, functional and life test, packaging, DFT and inventory management are discussed as well. The OCEAN Platform video also talks about these activities. Point 3 appears to be covered.

We already discussed point 4, leaving point 5, bring-up track record. You will find discussions on the Presto website about operating life and stress testing (HTOL/HAST for those who like acronyms). Custom hardware and extensive test facilities are needed for these critical bring-up tasks. They are covered. You can view a series of customer success stories here.

Stacking up points 1-5 indicates to me the new, combined Presto/DELTA organization checks the boxes as a focused ASIC supplier contender. The industry needs more dedicated ASIC suppliers – it’s good for emerging businesses and the semiconductor industry in general. Presto Engineering and DELTA Microelectronics are both based in Europe, France and Denmark respectively. The combined company does offer a global footprint from a sales and support point of view.

In the press release announcing the DELTA acquisition, Michel Villemain, the CEO of Presto Engineering said, “This acquisition allows us to expand our business and provide industrial and semiconductor companies with a consolidated European partner that offers ASIC design, test, qualification and manufacturing expertise.” It will be interesting to watch Presto as they build ASIC momentum.


Private Datacenter Safer than the Cloud? Dangerously Wrong.

Private Datacenter Safer than the Cloud? Dangerously Wrong.
by Bernard Murphy on 04-02-2020 at 6:00 am

Cloud Security

The irony around this topic in the middle of the coronavirus scare – when more of us are working remotely through the cloud – is not lost on me. Nevertheless, ingrained beliefs move slowly so it’s still worth shedding further light. There is a tribal wisdom among chip designers that what we do demands much higher security than any other conceivable activity and can only be handled safely in our in-company datacenter.

At one time, this demand was reasonable. In-house IT/IS worked hard to limit access, hackers weren’t too sophisticated and nation/state hacking wasn’t a thing (as far as we knew). But when it comes to security, cloud capabilities have been racing ahead and your IT/IS group, with the best will in the world, is hopelessly outmatched. If you work for the NSA or CIA on air-gapped systems you may still be more secure, otherwise we might want to revisit those cherished beliefs.

Sometimes our beliefs are so ingrained they defy reason. Dan Ganousis (VP sales and marketing at Metrics) told me he recently talked to three design verification teams at one of the largest cloud providers, who told him that they could never put their IP in the cloud because it isn’t sufficiently secure. Seriously? They work for one of the largest cloud services providers in the world. Everyone else is moving to the cloud – retail, banks, financial services, trading, legal services, medical records, the DoD. But design IP supposedly requires higher security than those do? And it’s OK that they as employees of that provider don’t trust that security but everyone else should?

That one’s good for a laugh but there are more serious reasons we need to wake up and smell the coffee. One is simply engineering horsepower. Who is going to build more secure datacenters, a trillion-dollar company with a cloud service business as a major component of its revenue or a much smaller company in which IT/IS is a small component of cost, not even revenue? Sure, the cloud providers started out behind, but they’ve had a long time to catch up, they can afford to recruit the best of the best and they’re constantly pushed by a wider range of customer and security demands than our datacenters will ever be.

Another is liability. Ask your legal department about the contracts they have signed with your IP providers. Those contracts require that the company provide best efforts in ensuring their IP data is kept secure. This is legal-speak requiring that the efforts they make will be at least as good as the best efforts that can be found any company, not just in companies like ours.

Back in the day, that was pretty subjective. We could make a list of all the things we were doing to ensure our IP provider data was secure, everyone would look at the list, say “wow, long list, we’re impressed” and that would be good enough. But now there are objective benchmarks – the cloud providers. Anyone can go to these websites and download their security provisions.

Are we doing as much as Microsoft, Amazon, Google, IBM and others, including what they recommend as best practices? Point by point? If not, we are not making best efforts according to a legally supportable definition of that term, and we’re in violation of the contract. Ultimately this isn’t something we engineers get to decide; it’s a decision more likely to be made by the CEO, the board and consulting counsel.

Then think about what our company has moved to the cloud over the last three years. HR has HIPAA (health insurance) data and payroll there. They have our resumes there and the NDAs we signed. Finance has stock grants, contracts, accounts. Everything critical to the business – stuff that both financially and legally the company and its employees cannot afford to have hacked – it’s all in the cloud, apart from our design.

About that design. When a company signs a sales contract with a customer, part of that contract covers escrow, a requirement that we deposit all our design data, software, documentation, test suites and so on in some safe place. This provides customers with an option, if disaster hits, to retrieve the data so they can continue to support whatever they bought from us and can make new versions themselves or through some other provider if needed.

Escrow is a serious legal business. Cloud-based escrow even has a name: Escrow as a Service (EaaS). So all our design crown jewels are already in the cloud, at least for past designs.

So next time any of us want to argue that we can’t do verification or whatever in the cloud because it’s not secure? No – just no. Once reasonable, security concern as a defense has become the veritable Monty Python parrot – kicked the bucket, shuffled off this mortal coil, gone to meet its maker and joined the choir invisbule. Funny, but very out of touch.

Metrics provides cloud-based verification. You might want to check them out.


COVID-19 and Chinese Automotive Innovation

COVID-19 and Chinese Automotive Innovation
by Roger C. Lanctot on 04-01-2020 at 10:00 am

COVID19 and Chinese Automotive Innovation

It’s a shame that the U.S. president and his administration have chosen to criticize and attack China for its poor management of the novel coronavirus crisis. It is rapidly becoming evident that China now knows more than any other country how to effectively confront the pathogen and bring it to its knees.

Rather than reaching out and embracing Chinese leaders, particularly in the healthcare community, the U.S. has turned its back. It’s not too late for the U.S. to change its tune and have a listen to a little advice from the East. It might even save lives.

Early on, China recognized the need to shutdown Wuhan, the area most immediately impacted by the outbreak. But a shutdown in China has a very different from the meaning of a shutdown in the West. China closed all businesses and public transportation. As my colleague in Beijing put it to me: “If you needed or wanted to go to the hospital, you walked.”

These stern measures looked nasty and unfair from outside China. From inside China it simply made sense, and it didn’t matter because there was no choice. The key, though, was the speed of the reaction once the nature and scope of the crisis was grasped by political leaders.

This speed characterizes the core of Chinese technnical innovation. China, along with other Asian nations, has demonstrated a keen ability to combine government direction and guidance with nimble private enterprise to rapidly close the technology gap with the West. This has clearly been demonstrated in the very public response to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as in the automotive industry, where I work.

China’s automobile industry is now stirring, rising from the ashes of a traumatic struggle with the COVID-19 coronavirus which struck three months ago in Wuhan, considered by some to be the center of China’s car making culture with multiple OEM and supplier factories. Most observers of China in the automotive industry tend to focus on the size of the Chinese automotive market and its rate of growth. What most miss on first glance is the volume and variety of innovation.

China accounts for nearly a third of total global vehicle production. Until recently, China was also the fastest growing automobile market on the planet. The amazing thing about these two figures is the fact that nearly all of the vehicles made in China are consumed in China.

The Chinese automotive market is a massive, self-contained entity where innovation has been allowed to run wild as dozens of auto makers – both domestic car companies and joint ventures with foreign car makers – battle for both domination and differentiation. While the market outside China appears to be slowly consolidating around a couple of dozen large car makers, China’s home-grown automobile economy continues to sprout new car making startups, many of them targeting the market for electric vehicles. (It should be noted that the government has regularly intervened in the automotive market to either stimulate sales and the creation of new care makers – or to discourage new startups and encourage consolidation.)

But before autonomous vehicles and electric vehicles came along, Chinese auto makers embraced connectivity – a proposition that lit the fuse of automotive tech innovation that burns brightly to this day. One of the first connected cars in China, introduced nearly a dozen years ago, and also the first car with an Android operating system in its infotainment system, was the Roewe 350 with InkaNet (i.e. in car net) from SAIC Motors.

The Roewe 350 did not fare well due, in part, to the limitations of Android at the time. But the idea of injecting Android into a car dashboard originated in China. The system allowed SAIC to experiment with a wide range of Android-based applications including my favorite: Walkie Talkie.

The Walkie-Talkie app allowed drivers across multiple streams to communicate with other drivers in real-time while they drove. I thought the app would be a powerful traffic information sharing tool. The reality was that users shared their thoughts about the latest soccer contest in Europe or other social or political issues of the day. Walkie-Talkie, clever though it was, faded and died.

But there were many other innovations. I remember John Du, chief technologist at GM China, creating an app to allow drivers to connect and communicate based on license plate identification. Again, a clever idea, but this one never made it into a dashboard.

More recently Nio Motors has intdocued Nomi, an AI-enabled, dashboard mounted, animated and robotic digital agent for interacting with drivers and passengers and also capable of taking selfies. Again, an incredibly innovative way to advance customer engagement and one that has been replicated with on-dash holograms and other avatar-based in-vehicle assistants.

These innovations are only a handful of the massive array of infotainment, connectivity, and safety innovations emerging from China’s automotive market. The automotive industry and the world would be wise to recognize the innovation engine that is the Middle Kingdom.

That innovation is manifest today in ride hailing operator DiDi Chuxing’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Exactly 30 days ago, DiDi rolled out a program to install protective plastic dividers in the millions of cars on its ride-hailing platform to protect drivers and passengers from transmission of the virus.

By the time DiDi deployed the plastic dividers the company had already set up service stations for sterilizing cars, monitoring the temperatures of drivers, and distributing free facial masks in more than 148 cities across the country, according to the South China Morning Post. The SCMP noted that the plastic shield installation effort represented a $14.3M investment by the company.

The significance of this DiDi effort is that it remains thus far unmatched anywhere else in the world – most notably not at Uber. It also positions DiDi to capitalize on the post-COVID-19 need for safe transportation as public transportation networks restart – but with public transporation riders likely to be looking for safer alternatives.

We have a lot to learn from China in this post-COVID-19 world. The sooner we choose to listen to and learn from China the sooner we will begin saving lives and get back to work. We have already far surpassed China in the number of infected citizens in the U.S. This is not the kind of leadership the world expects from the U.S.


Chip-to-Chip Communication for Enterprise and Cloud

Chip-to-Chip Communication for Enterprise and Cloud
by Mike Gianfagna on 04-01-2020 at 6:00 am

Screen Shot 2020 03 14 at 4.35.20 PM

I recently had the opportunity to attend a SemiWiki webinar entitled “Chip-to-Chip Communication for Enterprise and Cloud”.  The webinar was presented by SiFive and explored chip-to-chip communication strategies for a variety of applications.  In the first part of the webinar, Ketan Mehta, director of SoC IP product marketing at SiFive explored the uses of the Interlaken protocol. This specification has been around since 2007 and SiFive is on their 8th generation of Interlaken IP. It is the protocol of choice for many demanding data communication applications.

Ketan began with an overview of the markets that can be served by Interlaken IP, which include networking, AI/ML, data center, high-performance computing/cloud. A wide range of markets that all share the need to move more and more data. Looking a bit closer at the problem, we see communication needs driven by massively parallel on-chip systems and chip-to-chip interfaces, the latter requirement is typically driven by the need to decompose a reticle-size chip into a series of smaller die for yield considerations. All these applications demand high performance, low latency data communication.

Ketan pointed out that the Interlaken protocol is agnostic to the physical layer implementation and so we can see Interlaken channels implemented with high-speed SerDes as well as parallel wires. The protocol allows for a “light weight” implementation when compared to specifications such as Ethernet, and this contributes to its popularity. Open-Silicon, a SiFive subsidiary, was a founding member of the Interlaken Alliance, so the company has significant depth of experience using this protocol.

Ketan then introduced SiFive’s latest low-latency Interlaken IP. He went into quite a bit of detail about the capabilities of this new IP and discussed several real-world examples of where SiFive’s Interlaken IP is used in advanced applications. He concluded with an overview of SiFive’s Interlaken IP portfolio and a discussion of their roadmap.

Next, Sundeep Gupta, senior director of SoC IP at SiFive went into more details about the features and capabilities of SiFive’s Interlaken IP portfolio. As shown in the figure, below, SiFive Interlaken IP supports a broad range of Interlaken Alliance specifications. The IP is also available in two broad types, supporting high-bandwidth and low-latency.

Sundeep discussed in significant detail the key features of this IP portfolio, including performance, SerDes support, forward-error correction (FEC) support, user interface options and many more features. He then presented several block diagrams for various configurations, explaining the structure, data processing and data flow that can be implemented. What comes across during this part or the webinar is the flexibility of this IP portfolio.

Sundeep also went into details about how to create an optimal physical implementation of this IP during place and route. The ability to implement data redundancy was also covered, as well as information of how to use the IP in multi-core configurations, including lane distribution and lane remapping details.

Sundeep then discussed SiFive’s new low-latency IP for Interlaken support. This IP can deliver a 50% reduction in latency as compared with SiFive’s high-bandwidth IP. The features of this IP were covered, as well as an overview of how low-latency performance is achieved. He concluded his presentation with an overview of the deliverables provided by SiFive, summarized in the figure below.

The webinar concluded with a series of very detailed questions that further helped to illustrate the capabilities and roadmap of SiFive. If you’re involved in chip design requiring high-performance data communications, you will get a lot of benefit from this webinar. The good news is that a replay of the event is available here. The run time of the event is under 30 minutes, so you will learn a lot with a small investment in time.