llmda newsletter ad (2)

How HBM Will Change SOC Design

How HBM Will Change SOC Design
by Tom Simon on 03-19-2016 at 7:00 am

High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) promises to do for electronic product design what high-rise buildings did for cities. Up until now, electronic circuits have suffered from the equivalent of suburban sprawl. HBM is a radical transformation of memory architecture that will have huge ripple effects on how SOC based electronics are designed and assembled.

Instead of laying memory out horizontally, HBM vertically sandwiches memory silicon to create stacks of memory chips that are connected by using Through Silicon Vias (TSV’s). The JEDEC JESD235 standard for HBM was adopted in Oct 2013. The goal of the standard was to add bandwidth, reduce area, lower energy and increase functionality.

We’ve been hearing about stacking die and using TSV’s for a while, but they were primarily the domain of large FPGA or GPU companies. 2015 was a significant year for this technology as it has started to become much more readily incorporated into new designs. Still, the main application areas are high performance computing, graphics and networking. Nevertheless, because of the power and area advantages, HBM will be used in applications like laptops and mobile. It’s not just for the data center.

To put the significance of HBM in perspective consider that a single stack of HBM offers bandwidth of 128-256 gigabytes per second. One stack is approximately 5mm by 7mm. More than one stack can be used in a single package where it can be interfaced directly to an SOC. Typical arrangements use an interposer to combine multiple HBM stacks with their own controllers and a large SOC, such as a GPU, into a single package.


In HBM, each die in a stack has two fully independent memory channels of 1 to 32 gigabits. A stack consists of 4 die. When 4 die are stacked with, for example, 4 gigabits per channel they provide 4 gigabytes (8*4Gb) of storage. Each channel is completely independent and offers all of its signals to the bottom of the stack through TSV’s. This accounts for 193 signals per channel, of which 128 are data.

For a memory channel offering 128GB/sec, the controller need only be clocked at 500MHz, making closing timing relatively straightforward. Power savings are around 60% for HBM1 compared to GDDR5. Additionally, GDDR5 requires high drive strength PCB buses that consume board real estate and add design complexity. If 4 HBM2 Stacks (5mmx7mm) are used in a design, it would offer 1TB/sec bandwidth. To reach the same bandwidth with DDR4 would require 40 modules. The HBM stacks above could be easily added to a single 50mm square SIP.

eSilicon has been working with HBM since 2011. In 2014 they started with limited volume using HBM1 at 28nm. In 2015 they taped out 7 test chips. They are continuing support for HBM2 with a 28nm test chip that taped out in December of 2015. But their HBM capabilities are rapidly moving to 14nm and 16nm. Part of eSilicon’s business model is to provide one stop shopping for HBM based designs by bringing together design, test, and manufacturing to deliver a final yielded product.

To help designers understand the benefits and design process for HBM, eSilicon hosted a seminar recently that brought together SK Hynix, Amkor Technology, Northwest Logic, and Avery to speak on each step of delivering an HBM based product. For those who were not able to attend the seminar in Mountain View, eSilicon is hosting a webinar broadcast of the event scheduled for March 29 2016 at 8AM and again at 6PM PDT. There was a lot of useful information presented regarding the supply chain and design considerations for the memory die, PHY layer, HBM Controller and 2.5D design choices. This seminar is well worth watching if you care about higher bandwidth, lower power and area, among other things.


Can Qualcomm avoid repeating Motorola’s fate?

Can Qualcomm avoid repeating Motorola’s fate?
by Don Dingee on 03-18-2016 at 4:00 pm

NPR had an interesting guest this morning: Edward Luce, author of “Time to Start Thinking: America in the Age of Descent”. I’m not about to turn SemiWiki into a politics blog, but there is some precedent in the technology business. I’ve caught myself saying more than once recently that “Motorola is no longer the company I worked 14 years for.”

I started thinking about the decline of Motorola and the history of Qualcomm Continue reading “Can Qualcomm avoid repeating Motorola’s fate?”


Custom IC Design Flow with OpenAccess

Custom IC Design Flow with OpenAccess
by Daniel Payne on 03-18-2016 at 12:00 pm

Imagine being able to use any combination of EDA vendor tools for schematic capture, SPICE circuit simulation, layout editing, place & route, DRC, LVS and extraction. On the foundry side, how about creating just a single Process Development Kit (PDK), instead of vendor-specific kits. Well, this is the basic premise of a recent webinar from Brian Bradburn at Silvaco. The custom IC design flow with all Silvaco tools is shown below:

Foundries have long been creating vendor-specific Process Design Kits (PDK) for all of the major EDA vendors, which requires a lot of engineering effort. To streamline this engineering effort several standardization efforts have arisen.

PDK
A Process Design Kit (PDK) is just a collection of files and folders that define the front end and back end technology for IC design on a particular process node. Silvaco has created about 150 PDKs so far with a focus on low power, analog and power management foundries like:

  • TSMC
  • UMC
  • TowerJazz
  • X-Fab
  • GLOBALFOUNDRIES
  • ON Semiconductor
  • VIS
  • SMIC
  • Dongbu

iPDK
Interoperable PDK (iPDK) came from TSMC starting in 2007, and by 2009 the first 65nm iPDK was ready. The iPDK Alliance called IPL controls the iPDK specification and members include: Altera (Intel), Ciranova, Mentor Graphics, Pulsic, SpringSoft, Synospys and TSM with Xilinx and STMicroelectronics as advisors. With iPDK the foundry and partners spend less time on PDK development.

OpenPDK
As with much in the EDA industry, there will be multiple standards so OpenPDK is yet another approach, this time from Si2.org, using an XML structured file and translators for main vendor tools. Each supplier creates their own parser to create the standardized exchange format. An OPDK can also create an iPDK.

OpenAccess
Cadence created a standard way for any EDA company to read/write their IC design data for front-end and back-end, calling this OpenAccess. With OpenAccess an EDA vendor uses API calls to get IC data, which enable design data portability.

So you can open up the same schematic in either Virtuoso from Cadence or Gateway from Silvaco. In the Silvaco front-end tools you can either use native data or quickly translate to or from OpenAccess, your choice.

Issues

All of this IC design reuse sounds really promising and liberating, however there are some issue for you to aware of. There can be subtle differences between Cadence PDK (using Skill), iPDK (Tcl), custom PDK (Tcl, Python, Perl).

OpenAccess is certainly a great idea, yet over time there are different versions like DM4 in use today while DM5 is under design. Each data model is not compatible between versions, so you must have the compatible version in your tool flow. Vendor translators to OpenAccess need to be maintained and kept up to date. Finally, Cadence uses Skill code, which is not released as Open Source, so you need a copy of Virtuoso to update their cells.

All Silvaco Tools
To give you an idea of how many EDA and Tcad tools that Silvaco has to offer, look at the following chart:

Q&A

Q: Is Silvacopart of IPL?
A: We don’t really need to join, because the existing members are pushing iPDK in the right direction.

Summary
The lofty goals of taking your existing EDA tools and using an interoperable PDK are now reality, which really allows engineering teams to choose their front-end and back-end tools based on the design size, complexity and project budget.

Webinar Archive
View the archived webinar online here, after a brief registration process.

Related Blogs


Data Security Predictions for 2016!

Data Security Predictions for 2016!
by Daren Klum on 03-18-2016 at 7:00 am

2016 has come and with it some of the greatest challenges we have ever faced in the data security industry. Data breaches run rampant, encryption is dead, big security companies rake in billions in consulting fees selling fear and today’s large corporations have no other option than to shell out good money after bad on old tech that simply doesn’t work (a known evil is better than a new evil).

As I look into the crystal ball I see nothing but bad things coming. When I say bad I mean the kind that will change lives. I predicted last year was the ‘age of the hack’ and this year will be the ‘age of the impact.’ Meaning in 2016 hackers will develop new ways to monetized hacked data and turn it into BIG money. I also believe hacking will hit our grid – power, airline and all the ‘things’ we are starting to connect to the Internet.

Whether or not we want to admit it America is at War with a cunning, smart and well financed enemy. They will start using the Internet as a weapon (they already have) and frankly we are simply not well enough equipped to thwart these efforts. The industry has moved too slow and sadly as it stands today many of our critical systems are still wide open and available to any number of attacks.

2016 will continue to see a rise in social engineering on social networks. The ‘bad guys’ will develop even more brilliant ways to gain access to your information and use your identity for it’s gain. We are already seeing a major rise in ‘stolen identities’ and that will continue to grow. Also, there will be a huge influx of foreigners trying to get into America and that will fuel the false identity market. Even more so than what we see today.

I also see 2016 as the year 1 out of 5 people will be a victim of some form of fraud. From insurance, payroll, tax returns and credit card fraud. 2016 will see a huge rise in fraud as money becomes tight in countries across the world and criminals see no other way to make money than to turn to cyber-crime.

I’m sorry I sound so negative – it’s just the harsh reality of 2016. So do you want some good news for 2016?

I believe we will finally see some tangible alternatives to the legacy technologies like encryption that have prevented us from having true security. I believe companies like Microsoft, Intel are taking security seriously and bringing in new technologies that really solve some of the pressing issues. I also see the rise of new technology like my company Secured2 that has eliminated the data in transit & at rest hacking problem. I also see far better monitoring technology emerging and a better way of understanding who is accessing data and where it’s going.

Most importantly, I believe we will start seeing security built into products so the products themselves are secure and don’t require significant technical ability. Security should be invisible and just work. I see that starting to emerge in 2016.

One thing is certain – for every move we make in a positive direction the bad guys make moves as well. It’s always a challenge to stay one step ahead of a smart, well funded and relentless enemy. As it stands right now the enemy has an upper hand but the good news is times are changing.


Autonomy at Odds with Security

Autonomy at Odds with Security
by Roger C. Lanctot on 03-17-2016 at 4:00 pm

It’s funny that we all now believe that Google got the automated driving ball rolling. The reality is that the government started it all with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and its famous DARPA Grand Challenge, which consisted of three tests (in 2004, 2005 and 2007) of driverless cars in different driving environments ranging from cross country to urban.
Continue reading “Autonomy at Odds with Security”


VC Apps Tutorial at DVCon 2016

VC Apps Tutorial at DVCon 2016
by Bernard Murphy on 03-17-2016 at 7:00 am

We might wish that all our design automation needs could be handled by pre-packaged vendor tool features available at the push of a button, but that never was and never will be the case. In the language of crass commercialism, there may be no broad market for those features, even though you consider that analysis absolutely essential.

Much of the analysis of this type is motivated by insufficient capabilities to do comprehensive checks through simulation. This is particularly the case in top-level checking on very large designs, but I have seen examples of in-house automation starting as small (ha-ha) as 20M gates. Typical questions include whether all blocks are hooked up correctly (per spec requirements) or more quickly localizing latency or coverage problems in a design.

Connectivity checks are a good example of this class. For connectivity between two instances of two specific IPs, you might have a requirement that say ports beginning with “a” cannot connect to ports beginning with “q”. This kind of checking can get progressively more elaborate. A clock pin must be driven by a clock source in the appropriate domain; it also can only be gated by a signal from an appropriate source. Reset pins have similar requirements and must be grouped accordingly into reset domains.


This concept need not be limited to static and netlist-specific checks. You might also want to look at power intent, simulation data, performance data and formal analysis. And you might not just want to do checking/analysis – you might also want that analysis to drive design modification.

Building these kinds of capabilities starts with user-extensibility to core tools. I’m pretty familiar with this concept from my Atrenta days – we built extensibility into SpyGlass and other tools through Tcl, Perl and C interfaces. But I’m in awe of what you can do through the Synopsys VC Apps. These give you a unified interface to data for the design, simulation, coverage, power intent, formal analysis and more.

VC Apps is a programming interface, through Tcl or C, to customize Verdi. And since Verdi is the integrated debug platform in Verification Compiler, that means you can get to anything Verdi can get to. Several examples were presented:

  • General connectivity checking, also graphing completion of connectivity by different classes (I would guess clock, reset, communication, that sort of thing)
  • Looking for high latency on reads and writes to memory, then color-coding read/write-enables in the simulation waveform corresponding to those cases
  • Generating specialized power instrumentation rules by looking at both the design and power intent

Why support both Tcl and C? Good question. Tcl is great for quick one-off checks, and maybe even long term checks which you’ll make part of your regression. And Synopsys Tcl provides a lot of nice grouping and filtering features which otherwise you’d have to write yourself. But if you need to write computationally intensive applications and you’re comfortable in C or C++, you may find the C API is faster. Either way, you can access a lot of capability.

You can learn more about VC Apps HERE.

More articles by Bernard…


You can see it if you look SXSW

You can see it if you look SXSW
by Don Dingee on 03-16-2016 at 4:00 pm

Watching worlds of mobility, entertainment, and social media collide and helping customers navigate through this new technological landscape has been my passion for the last few years since I founded Left2MyOwnDevices. As a new arrival in Texas, I had my first chance to see just how big the convergence is at the premier event in Austin this week: SXSW.

“Oh, that’s not a technology show, it’s a music festival.” I heard similar disparaging remarks tossed at CES a decade ago. Many said it was just a TV and camera show, until the major players in semiconductor, mobile, and software showed up in force and brought the automotive and healthcare folks along for the ride. Those who think of SXSW only as a cultural event and not a place for technologists (the SXSW Interactive portion) are missing the picture.

SXSW does have a different feel to it. It’s not an exhibit-based “show” in the sense that you just walk into a convention center and wander around a bunch of booths. There certainly is that component; the Austin Convention Center, where we will be for DAC in June, is probably my favorite tradeshow venue. There were a suitable number of vendors on display – we didn’t actually have badges to take a look inside. (I wasn’t even planning on going to SXSW this week; we closed on our new home here on Friday and couldn’t take possession until Monday, so my daughter and son-in-law suggested we just go look around for a bit.)

However, I was amazed at just how much of SXSW was accessible without a badge. The event takes over the Austin entertainment district between 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and 6[SUP]th[/SUP] Streets for blocks. Most of the bars and restaurants were configured for various panel discussions. For instance, the very first place we arrived was the Pandora House – many establishments are rebranded with sponsor signage for the week. On stage there was a panel, including heavy hitters from both Pandora and Verizon, discussing the impact of virtual reality on real-world events as a new channel for artists and festivals.

Then we moved down a few buildings to the Mashable complex, actually several buildings and a courtyard. My kids asked, “Do you know anyone at Mashable?” I pointed to @LanceUlanoff on the social media board, chuckling a bit. (Later in the day we stumbled on another panel discussing diversity in healthcare research, and the three twentysomething female panelists proposed the hashtag #NotAllOldWhiteGuys – but they were quick to point out that some of us get it, or at least a good portion of it. I’ve never been one of the cool kids, it’s OK.)

They immediately recognized the Amazon logo and ran over to their display for Amazon Launchpad – send a Tweet, get a t-shirt. I went the other direction to a booth I recognized, one with a familiar logo but a rather cryptic display:


I can recommend a good book about those chips you can’t see inside your phones. Qualcomm was showing an augmented reality demo one could view with a tablet. Also scattered around the downtown area were similar panels and displays from Facebook, Google, IBM, Samsung and more. Most of the new media outlets were there as well; in addition to Mashable, Fast Company had taken over a restaurant. Even McDonald’s was sponsoring a restaurant just outside of the convention center. SXSW has long been a haven for startups, but the large corporations with a major social presence are now seeing the benefits of being there.

One of the startups I ran into was Bolt Motorbikes, with CEO Josh Rasmussen showing his creation on a hotel patio for passers-by. Bolt is right up against the Vespa, without the European panache – short range, urban transport on a more serious looking bike without the license and insurance requirements of a motorcycle. Rasmussen has drawn on Tesla-like battery and charging technology, with removable battery packs which can be taken into an office for charging, and regenerative braking to extend the driving distance (between 30 and 40 miles at up to 45 mph).

We all noticed the huge Chris Hardwick sign on another building (and I missed @Midnight this week, still waiting for the DIRECTV installer as I write this). I was then able to one-up my kids on coolness for a change – one of my other favorite TV shows had a large presence. I’m definitely a ‘1’, while my kids are looking up this show to binge Season 1:


One message I’d have everyone in this industry take away: this is what our customers look like today, and going forward.

They’ve grown up with MP3 downloads and smartphones and game consoles and satellite radio and streaming video. These are the customers we’re designing for, be it mobile, or automotive, or IoT, or wearables. They are consuming content from multiple channels and telling all their friends on social media. Anyone who doesn’t embrace these changes will get run over by them. The thing is, if you’ve been going to just the established electronics and EDA shows, you may not appreciate the degree of changes we’re dealing with – I know this was an eye-opener for me.

Welcome to fsociety, y’all. Look me up next time you’re in central Texas.


Why Can’t My Car be Like My iPhone?

Why Can’t My Car be Like My iPhone?
by Roger C. Lanctot on 03-16-2016 at 12:00 pm

Car companies must gaze with envy at Apple in the midst of its current confrontation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. over access to data on the iPhone of a terrorist. If only, they must say, if only we had Apple-like security for our cars.

By and large, when law enforcement agencies around the world need or want to extract data from a car they simply tear it apart, open it up and download it. The car maker very likely won’t even get a courtesy call.

Driving history, recent destinations, recent phone numbers called, contacts, you name it. If the driver or passengers paired their phones with the car, it’s all in there. One can only assume that the authorities have already torn apart the car owned by the shooters in San Bernadino, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. But the episode highlights the vast gulf that exists between handset security and automotive security.

For the most part, car companies concerned with vehicle security are focused on defeating thieves who are focused on stealing, spoofing or amplifying and redirecting wireless signals from keyfobs. Very little effort has been extended to the security hygiene of the connected systems inside the cars.

You can’t blame the car companies, really. With the requirement to keep the on-board diagnostic port open and available it almost seems pointless to try to secure the rest of the car. But car companies are trying. They must.

But imagine cars being so secure that investigators would have to ask permission to extract data. Today, a cottage industry is rapidly emerging around hacking cars – all over the world. Only it’s not called hacking. It’s called “reverse engineering.”

People reverse engineer cars for sport and the more they do the easier it seems to get and the less time seems to be required. Car companies are moving to create gateways to seal off the OBDII ports and to explore the creation of separate high speed CANbus networks. But these efforts are taking time and even if successful, the vulnerability of cars is likely to persist.

It hasn’t been that big of a concern before now. Cars weren’t gathering much data in the past. But now cars are building contextual information around driving history, vehicle performance, and personal information as connected cars and smartphones exchange and fuse multiple data sources and connected systems are used to manage customer relationships.

In the end, the iPhone itself may remain secure, but the car will become a four-wheeled snitch for the guilty and innocent alike. The most obvious example of this vulnerability and sloppiness in the automotive industry is the rental car with the previous driver’s call record in the head unit. As a first step toward establishing some half decent security hygiene, car makers need to start erasing smartphone data after the phones are disconnected.

But better disclosure and opt in procedures are needed along with explanations at the point of sale. Of course, the less information that is gathered from the customer in the first place, the better. But cars themselves will soon be scanning their surroundings and even scanning drivers and passengers with cameras in the cabin. Will this data be uploaded or discarded? Hard to say – the industry has yet to define a consistent policy.

And until the industry confronts its vulnerability in a forthright manner, pledges and promises to adhere to government guidelines are meaningless. While everyone is looking for Apple to make a car, maybe the automotive industry ought to look into what it takes to make an iPhone. It seems we have a lot to learn.

More articles from Roger…


Can you really address the Automotive market with AP designed for smartphone?

Can you really address the Automotive market with AP designed for smartphone?
by Eric Esteve on 03-16-2016 at 7:00 am

If you remember, when TI decided to exit the booming wireless segment in 2012, the company decided to re-focus their application processor product line (OMAP) initially developed for smartphone “to a broader market including industrial clients like carmakers”. Being a TI employee in the 90’s in south of France, where TI has started the very successful wireless venture, I was feeling sad as it was the end of an amazing story. But I understood the business reasons and thought that it was a wise decision.

But the investment made by TI to develop OMAP had been huge, developing OMAP5 could be counted in thousands man.year, and the idea to target industrial market seems to be attractive. I was sharing this view, but I realize that I was naïve when thinking you can pick-up an existing SoC initially developed for wireless and decide to target automotive applications. These three words tell you why this was a naïve view: Reliability, Availability, Serviceability or RAS. The car pictured below is 58 years old. Do you really think that we will be able to use the first iPhone in 2065, even assuming that the proper network will be available?

One of Netspeed’ customers is a diversified company developing complex chips addressing server, automotive, and industrial market segments. Supporting automotive applications requires three criteria, safety, security, and reliability to outperform almost any other application. Safety because an automobile is a life-critical system, security because you don’t want to allow any malware to penetrate this system, and finally reliability as we all expect our car to be failure-free for years if not decades.

But SoC targeting certain automotive applications can be as complexes as application processors, integrating multiple CPU/GPU/DSP cores, which creates the need to design cache-coherent solutions. The company’s previous SoC was coherent, but the coherency solution was severely lacking flexibility and offered only limited configurability. The company’s new SoC architecture was targeting an increase in coherent bandwidth as well as the maximum possible flexibility, including a highly configurable coherency solution with design choices in multiple dimensions. To reach the lowest possible latency, the coherency architecture needed to scale with the number of coherency modules.

On top of these design challenges, which can be shared by SoC targeting other markets, comes the requirement to meet the ISO 26262 standard, specifically defined for the automotive market. To meet this high-reliability standard, architects wanted to provide a rich set of enterprise-class RAS (Reliability, Availability, Serviceability) features. Reliability can be linked with the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) and high reliability means the longest possible time before the system produces wrong outputs. Availability is the amount of time a device is actually operating as the percentage of total time it should be operating. Serviceability defines the simplicity and speed with which a system
can be repaired.

Since the company needed a coherency solution that was both highly configurable and fully scalable, NetSpeed was an obvious candidate since its Gemini NoC IP is the only product on the market that addresses both of these requirements. In fact, Gemini can satisfy requirements for both coherent and non-coherent designs and can also handle designs with a mix of coherent and non-coherent traffic. The company needed superior performance on coherent fabric to create differentiation from the competition. NetSpeed’s solution enabled it to meet its aggressive target of 100% increase in coherency bandwidth. Compared with the previous generation, the new SoC with NetSpeed’s superior coherency directory solution delivered ultra-low latency for the system, offering 25% improvement.

When deadlocks occur in a smartphone AP, it’s painful, but not tragic as you can simply reset the system by using On/Off button. Avoiding deadlocks can be life-critical for an automotive SoC! Using patented algorithms and formal methods to design NoCs that are correct-by-construction, NocStudio generated an architecture that was deadlock-free at the application level.

If you consider the long list of challenges directly linked with this SoC target application, automotive, you better understand why picking-up a smartphone AP and re-target this SoC to support the automotive market is attractive… but naïve. The SoC architect would have to rethink the architecture in respect with RAS requirements and flexible cache-coherency support, avoiding unacceptable deadlocks. Netspeed’ NocStudio would be the right cache-coherent NoC generator to help building such an automotive SoC.

This blog has been inspired by NetSpeed “Automotive SoC” Success Stories. You can read more about this story and Mobile AP, Networking, Digital Home SoC or Data Center Storage stories here

From Eric Esteve from IPNEST