CEVA Dolphin Weninar SemiWiki 800x100 260419 (1)

DDR stands for Don’t Do (Just) RTL

DDR stands for Don’t Do (Just) RTL
by Don Dingee on 06-16-2015 at 9:00 pm

In optimizing SoC design for performance, there is so much focus on how fast a CPU core is, or a GPU core, or peripherals, or even the efficiency of the chip-level interconnect. Most designers also understand selecting high performance memory at a cost sweet spot, and optimizing physical layout to clock it as fast as possible within power consumption limits, is imperative.

One can do all of that exactly right, and still have a lousy performing, and perhaps overdesigned, SoC. But, it doesn’t have to end up that way.

Dealing with the nuances of DDR memory controllers and comprehending what actual traffic patterns are in play can make a huge swing in performance. For instance, just getting address mapping right – conversion of AXI addresses to physical memory addresses, matching what the application is really doing – can improve memory subsystem performance by 20% or more. Optimizing clock frequency allows better use of bandwidth at lower speed bins, which can reduce cost and power.

It’s the last point raised by Synopsys’ Patrick Sheridan in opening a recent webinar that got my attention: QoS. “Different [DDR memory] masters can have varying and often contradicting requirements.” There is high priority traffic, and so-called low priority traffic, and both can starve affecting overall system performance. Optimizing a DDR controller isn’t as simple as throwing one switch; a blend of parameters needs to be explored.

Synopsys is in a unique position to provide a perspective on this topic. They provide IP, in this case a DesignWare DDR uMCTL2 memory controller block. They also provide tools for optimizing IP in SoC designs, such as Platform Architect MCO with multicore optimization technology. The environment described is a SystemC simulation with appropriate IP models to provide DDR subsystem visibility.


Combining in-depth understanding of DDR memory controller IP via models with workload simulation capability delivers what Synopsys claims is at least a 10x improvement over trying to fight it out with just RTL-level techniques. HDL co-simulation of RTL IP is fully supported. However, I think once viewers see this event, they may re-evaluate their current approach.

One thing I did not appreciate fully before viewing this webinar was just how many parameters are involved in designing around a DDR memory controller. The webinar moves on to take a very detailed look at analyzing the uMCTL2 IP in a mobile SoC application, presented by Tim Kogel.


The use case analysis Kogel presents looks at a mix of traffic from a CPU, a GPU, a camera, and a display in a mobile device. The scenario models 300 us of traffic, with a QoS goal of 200 uS for the graphics processing. Illustrated is an approach to define elastic workloads across the IP blocks synchronized as necessary, then all projected onto a deadline analysis.

Address mapping is explored and optimized using the performance model, using a graphical view of JEDEC commands per interval. “Hot bit” visualization aids exploration, and then the memory clock speeds are optimized – again, using the actual traffic load and the deadline constraints.


That’s just the start of the event. Kogel then goes into a detailed discussion of parameter configuration, including a video showing how Platform Architect MCO can optimize hundreds of parameters in the uMCTL2. A key takeway: 300 us of real-time traffic is simulated, with all instrumentation and graphical visualization enabled, in about 10 seconds. This makes it super easy to change a parameter and re-simulate almost instantly.

To register and view the complete event:

Optimize DDR Memory Subsystem Efficiency With Synopsys Platform Architect

This is a great example of how powerful SystemC modeling can get inside IP quickly and explore complex issues in real-world scenarios. Even if you are not using Synopsys IP, Platform Architect, or SystemC modeling, this is worth your time to see the approach. What you may be overlooking, or spending huge amounts of time solving, could make the difference in your next design.


Apple Watch Design Revisit with a Wi-Fi Twist

Apple Watch Design Revisit with a Wi-Fi Twist
by Majeed Ahmad on 06-16-2015 at 5:00 pm

Apple Watch is the world’s most celebrated gadget in 2015. At the same time, however, early product reviews highlight some issues about slow apps, less than impressive user experience, and short battery life.

Apple, the master of artful integration, has done well for its reputation of elite hardware and has been able to create a sophisticated product design for a wearable device. But here is a design avenue that can help counter the challenges like slower apps and battery drain. The idea can serve well to Apple Watch 2 design that is most likely on the drawing board right now and countless other smart wearables in the making.


Apple S1 comprises of 30 components

The design consideration is based on value points taken from the recent launch of CEVA’s RivieraWaves Wi-Fi IPs that allow system-on-chip (SoC) engineers to integrate Wi-Fi functionality onto their chips with clear and visible power and size benefits. CEVA has unveiled its Wi-Fi and Bluetooth solutions for mobile, wearable and IoT devices at the Linley IoT Conference held in Santa Clara, California on June 11, 2015.

The CEVA RivieraWaves Wi-Fi platform encompasses MAC and PHY modem functions. The MAC device—available as a hardware accelerator as well as software stacks in the form of lower MAC and upper MAC—is processor and operating system (OS) agnostic. For the modem, there are two options available, hardwired modem and software-defined modem (SDM).

Apple Watch Design Revisit

Let’s revisit the Apple Watch design footprint S1 that comprises of 30 components. Apple’s revered smart watch uses Bluetooth to connect to the iPhone and Wi-Fi to speed up data transfer when required. A sneak peek of S1 teardown from Chipworks shows that Apple used Broadcom’s BCM43342 chip for 802.11n, Bluetooth 4.0 and FM communication functions. The view of teardown also shows that Broadcom’s Wi-Fi plus Bluetooth combo IC is the second largest chip on the Apple Watch footprint. It acquired the die size of 18.5mm2 on S1.


Broadcom’s Wi-Fi chip is the largest after Apple’s APU

Now let’s take CEVA-plus-Catena-RF 802.11ac and Bluetooth combo solution that comes with MAC, modem, AFE, RF, CPU and memories. CEVA has joined hands with Catena, a supplier of RF IPs, to provide one-stop-shop for Wi-Fi and Bluetooth IP solutions. Catena’s radio IPs for Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are available on a number of process nodes, including 28nm at GlobalFoundries and 65nm at TSMC.

The CEVA-plus-Catena-RF solution, integrated with Apple’s APL0778 application processor manufactured at 28nm, would have taken up just 6mm2 on Apple S1, resulting in a 70 percent saving in die size. And that’s a lot of leverage in terms of power consumption and reduced cost due to smaller die size and lower BOM. The reduction in power consumption for the Wi-Fi plus Bluetooth connectivity stack on Apple’s SoC would have also come from the lower geometry of Apple app processor manufactured at 28nm. Broadcom’s Wi-Fi chip, on the other hand, has been manufactured at 40nm.

The CEVA RivieraWaves IP platform allows chip designers to integrate Wi-Fi connectivity onto their SoC solutions. The Wi-Fi integration is becoming imperative for wearable and Internet of Things (IoT) devices in particular because these devices are all about being smaller, cheaper and low-power. Moreover, Wi-Fi consumes lower power than Bluetooth for higher data transfer as shown in the Apple Watch use-case.


Wi-Fi integrated into APU or MCU

Another option that CEVA offers is a low-cost standalone Wi-Fi chip design that doesn’t require a host application processor. Here, CEVA’s TeakLite-4 DSP core can execute CPU functions. The CEVA-TeakLite-4 takes care of MAC and TCP/UDP protocol stacks and provides support for always-on sensing and audio processing applications.

CEVA’s MAC device is processor agnostic, so chip designers are free to pick other CPUs such as ARM Cortex-M, Andes, Cortus APS and ARC EM platforms.


A CEVA-powered Wi-Fi chip that doesn’t require a CPU license

Beken Design Win

Beken Corp., a high-volume supplier of wireless audio chips, has licensed the CEVA TeakLite-4 DSP core and RivieraWaves Sense 802.11n Wi-Fi connectivity solution for its upcoming SoC designs.

CEVA offers three connectivity platforms to cover all bases in the rapidly expanding Wi-Fi world. The RivieraWaves Sense IP for 802.11a/b/g/n/ac boasts the lowest power and smallest footprint that makes its suitable for wearable and IoT devices. The RivieraWaves Surf IP—aimed at mobile devices like smartphones and tablets—offers 802.11ac 1×1 and 2×2 IPs.


The CEVA RivieraWaves Wi-Fi IPs come in three flavors

CEVA’s third Wi-Fi flavor, the RivieraWaves Stream, is the highest performance IP that caters to wireless infrastructure products such small cells and access points. It serves 802.11ac for up to 4×4 MIMO applications and uses the CEVA-XC DSP core to facilitate advanced wireless communications.

Apparently, the Shanghai, China–based audio chipmaker Beken has opted for the CEVA-TeakLite-4 DSP for merging the Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and audio functionality onto a single core in its wireless SoCs. The CEVA-TeakLite-4 DSP cores are designed to handle audio, voice, sensing and wireless connectivity applications and they do it without requiring an additional CPU.

Again, resorting to the smart watch example, a single Bluetooth-enabled CEVA-TeakLite-4 can run always-on voice activation and voice commands, sensor fusion functionality, audio/voice processing, and dual-mode Low Energy Bluetooth also known as Bluetooth Smart Ready.

Visit RivieraWaves Wi-Fi product page for more information on the CEVA RivieraWaves Wi-Fi IP platform.


New Tool Suite to Accelerate SoC Integration

New Tool Suite to Accelerate SoC Integration
by Pawan Fangaria on 06-16-2015 at 12:30 pm

Today, an SoC is seen in the context of an optimized assembly of IPs; it’s no more a single monolithic chip design. It’s very common to see an ARM processor IP along with an interconnect IP, a memory IP, and couple of buses and interfaces IP in an SoC. Although the SoC seems to be an integrated collection of IPs, it can be very complex and the number of IPs can grow to any extent. From a manufacturing point of view, the power, performance and area (PPA) are the parameters to worry about at the IP level. For an SoC, there can be large catalogs of optimized IPs in every category from where the best IPs can be picked up and assembled in the SoC. Of course, the problem gets enlarged at the SoC level because one has to choose the right IPs and then integrate them in the most optimized manner to achieve best PPA, latency, and minimum congestion. The overall system throughput must be at the maximum within the given power and area constraints.

The problem is even wider in economic sense, because an SoC is a complete system that needs to be targeted to a particular market segment within specified cost parameters. The target segment, cost, and IP integration architecture are the key criteria for an SoC which appear much before the PPA for its success in the market place. There was a whitepaper written by me a couple of weeks ago (link to the whitepaper is at the end of this article) which provides details about the key criteria for SoCs in modern context. Today, I’m extremely happy to see the automated tools that address these top criteria for SoC integration.

During 52[SUP]nd[/SUP] DAClast week, it was a very pleasant occasion when I met Andy Nightingale, VP of System IP Marketing at ARM; Norman Walsh, Director of IP Tooling at ARM; and Simon Rance, Senior Product Manager of System and Software Group at ARM who demonstrated an innovative IP Tooling Suite developed at ARM for very fast and optimized SoC integration. That’s when I remembered about my whitepaper because it exactly touches upon some of the key criteria for SoCs mentioned there. Let’s see how this suite of tools helps in SoC integration.

ARM Socrates DE provides an advanced design environment where desired IPs can be chosen from an IP catalog, and then instantiated and configured as per designers’ need. The design environment is common to ARM’s existing environment that takes advantage of the already built-in protocols. It also supports third party IPs to be integrated into the sub-system or SoC. The IP-XACT format is used to maintain the IP interfaces at the industry level standard. If any third party IP does not have an IP-XACT description than the environment has utility to automatically generate IP-XACT from the RTL and point out mismatches, if any. The interesting part about Socrates DE is that it allows designers to customize IPs into different configurations to differentiate from others and instantly provides BOM (Bill of Material) for the overall sub-system or SoC. By using this tool, a designer can do several trials to configure IPs and optimize the overall sub-system or SoC for a target application within the given budget. The configuration and optimization of the SoC can be done in a day’s time or even hours as against several months to evaluate between various options without this tool.

After the initial architecture determination within the Socrates DE, there is ARM CoreSight Creator which provides an excellent Debug & Trace System seamlessly integrated with the Socrates DE. The CoreSight Creator is used to fine-tune the micro-architecture for better configuration efficiencies. It uses all built-in design rules provided in the ARM environment.

Another vital component in the tool suite is ARM CoreLink Creator which optimizes the Interconnect System for congestion free operation. ARM’s new CoreLink NIC-450 Network Interconnect offers a tool-driven automation flow that employs algorithms for tasks such as ensuring deadlock-free operation and partitioning across multiple power/voltage domains.

The overall suite of tools provides the most optimized and correct-by-construction configuration for an SoC or a sub-system along with its associated testbench. This approach reduces the SoC turn-around time and the risk of re-spin by a large extent because of improved predictability and QoR.

The ARM platforms including a large IP portfolio and suite of tools for IP configuration and integration provide an ideal platform for SoC integration. ARM’s partners can gain most value out of this system in today’s SoC environment. I am told that already there are more than 50 System IP tooling partners with ARM. It’s natural because finding right BOM with an optimized configuration and architecture for IP integration into the SoC is a burning need today.

ARM press release is here.
Here is my whitepaper “SoCs in New Context – Look beyond PPA”.
Also read “Even More Integration and Automation for ARM-based Designs

Pawan Kumar Fangaria
Founder & President at www.fangarias.com


High Level Synthesis. Are We There Yet?

High Level Synthesis. Are We There Yet?
by Paul McLellan on 06-16-2015 at 7:00 am

High level synthesis (HLS) seems to have been part of the backdrop of design automation for so long that it seems to be one of those things that nobody notices any more. But it has also crept up on people and gone from interesting technology to keep an eye on to getting genuine adoption. The first commercial product in the space was behavioral compiler introduced in 1994 by Synopsys. In that era we all thought that design would inevitably move up from RTL to C, but in fact IP came along as the dominant methodology, with IP blocks largely designed in RTL (if they were digital anyway) and then assembled into SoCs.

I attended a presentation at the Calypto theatre by Frans Sijstermans of Nvidia about How HLS Saved Our Skin…Twice. Nvidia were facing the problem that designs were growing at 1.4X per generation but design capacity only at 1.2X causing problem. In 2013 the video team faced a new chip with all sorts of new technologies on the must-have list: HEVC, VP9, deep color, 4K resolution and more. An analysis showed that using their old methodology would take 14 months but only 9 months were available. Google had been using HLS successfully for video and talking publicly about it so Nvidia contacted them and then they decided to use HLS to pull in the schedule.


So the first time their skin was saved was getting the design on-track for an RTL freeze in March 2014, using 8 bit color. Then in January 2014 was the consumer electronics show (CES). Lots of people were showing HEVC but with 10 bit color. They realized that the project had no future, they had guessed wrong about market requirements. “We messed up,” the head of the division admitted. Without HLS there was absolutely no way to fix this since it affected every register and operator of every datapath in the entire design.

They recoded the C++ for 10 bit instead of 8. They ran it through HLS. All the pipeline stages changed due to the different performance. But would it work? How could they verify it? They worked out that to run the 100,000 tests the HEVC standard provided at the RTL level would take 1000 cores for 3 months. Instead they did all the verification running all the tests at the C++ level. It took a single CPU 3 days. Of course they still ran a bunch of tests at the RTL level, just to be safe. They taped out the two versions, a 20nm block for mobile at 510MHz and a 28HP discrete GPU at 800MHz.

Nvidia’s conclusions:
[LIST=1]

  • We still have jobs!
  • Code is 5X smaller
  • Pipeline changes that are painful in RTL are not in HLS
  • QoR is the same
  • Complex algorithms go through wonderfully
  • Designs with strict cycle-by-cycle requirements are more challenging with no explicit clock

    One company who have been using HLS for a long time is ST Microelectronics. Their experience has been that increasingly RTL is the wrong level to code IP since it locks in the microarchitecture in a way that is next to impossible to change. The same algorithm in 28nm and 16nm will require a completely different pipeline running at a completely different frequency (after all, the throughput of, say, 4K video doesn’t change depending on the silicon used for implementation, it is set by the video standards).

    The world of using FPGAs in datacenters has been forefront in everyone’s attention recently with Intel’s acquisition of Altera (not yet completed). Nobody thinks Intel is doing this because they want a small (by their standards) FPGA business but because if integrated FPGAs in the datacenter are important they need control of that technology at more than a partner/foundry level. Last year a high-profile paper by Microsoft showed how using FPGAs and high-level synthesis to get the algorithms in could double the performance of the Bing search engine. Other similar papers have shown acceleration of other algorithms that are not especially well handled on a microprocessor compared to the huge inherent parallelism of an FPGA.

    The leader in HLS, at least in terms of real active users, has to be Xilinx. They acquired AutoESL a few years ago as the seed for what has become Vivado HLS. There are over 1000 users not just playing around with it but using it for production bitstreams (the FPGA equivalent of a tapeout). For sure there is some learning curve, but it seems to take about a week with an AE to get a team proficient in the new methodology. That mirrors the Nvidia experience where the team hit the ground running with zero prior HLS experience.

    It is also used in several other Xilinx approaches. For example, under the hood of SDSoc it is just necessary to mark a block of software code for acceleration. Using HLS that block will be turned into FPGA gates, along with both the gates needed to move data in and out, and the software stubs. The rest of the code runs on the ARM processor on the same silicon. In a sense, HLS is the key technology to software-defined-hardware.

    They are not the only companies in the space. Cadence developed their C-to-silicon compiler and then acquired Forte Design so are also a player in the space. That would be a bagpipe player, because by acquiring Forte they also acquired the responsibility to arrange the traditional bagpipers to play Amazing Grace to close the Design Automation Conference exhibits, which they duly did on Wednesday evening.

    It is a long way from academic research and behavioral compiler to where we are today with mature technology in use for some extremely demanding SoCs and high-end FPGA systems.


  • I Don’t Know Much About Aart…

    I Don’t Know Much About Aart…
    by Paul McLellan on 06-15-2015 at 7:00 am

    Actually, like anyone who has been in EDA for more than a decade or two (or three) I know quite a bit about Aart. But I still learned quite a bit about his views at the Fireside Chat at DAC where Ed Sperling talked to Aart for three-quarters of an hour.

    Aart has a great talent at taking various small trends in the industry and aggregating them up to a significant trend. Or looking at some aspect of the industry and generalizing it in an interesting way. I won’t try and cover everything (it took Aart 45 minutes to say it and it would take you 45 minutes to read it…not to mention my note-taking skills are not that good.)

    One area where Synopsys is different from the other big 3 EDA companies is its recent (starting last year) foray into the software quality and security space with its acquisition of Coverity and a couple of other smaller companies or parts of companies. One of the things that Aart has learned, he said, was never to say something is secure. It is no more plausible than saying that Design Compiler is bug-free. Hopefully things are more secure than they were yesterday, just as hopefully Design Compiler has fewer bugs today. But security is just one angle in the software space, since it is not possible to have secure software if it is poor quality. There is no silver bullet in software quality but many things are pretty easy to check for so it is stupid not to do them.

    In the automotive keynote on Tuesday Jeffrey Owens of Delphi pointed out that a car has 100M lines of code, more than Android and Facebook and…well, Aart saw Jeffrey’s 100M and raised him to 400M. Synopsys has 400M lines of code in its portfolio. It invests 31-34% of revenue in R&D. Plus they have done 17 or 18 acquisitions over the years to add additional capability over and above what they invest directly.

    Ed asked Aart if internal development was cheaper than acquisition. Aart agreed that it was but the timing is not always right. If a company develops a technology and makes it a commercial success, it may be too late to start an internal project to copy it. This is classic innovator’s dilemma stuff, by the time the future is obvious it is too late. Aart said that VCs are always complaining about bubbles in valuations, but what they really mean is that they want to be inside one. “Lord let there be one more bubble” was a bumper sticker he had seen on Sand Hill Road. But for sure, right now, internet software companies are valued more highly than EDA companies.

    Ed asked Aart about Moore’s Law and Dennard’s Law (the one about scaling transistors). Does everything go more slowly? Are there too few companies at the sharpest end of the arrow? I think Aart actually ducked the question by saying that exponential ambition is alive and well in hardware and software and developments in hardware and software will continue for another 30 years or more. For a couple of years Aart has had a keynote built around what he calls Technomics, the combination of economics and technology.


    He admits that there are economic challenges and the way that profits in the value chain may need to move. We see some of that already in the big investments that semiconductor companies need to make in equipment companies, especially for EUV, since there is not enough profit in simply selling equipment in the normal way. Similarly foundries have huge capex budgets, $10B for a new fab plus $3B for a new process to put in it. One solution that we have been living through is siloing everything aka disaggregation of the supply chain: materials companies, equipment companies, foundries, fabless design companies, EDA, embedded software and so on. That works for efficiency but often it is breaks down such as now where we are moving from Moore’s law (scale complexity) to systemic complexity. Coooperation is one way to break down silos, but not always that good. Mergers and acquisitions is more forceful.

    IoT will change the equation since it is going to use older nodes. But there may not be enough older node capacity. But Aart says that might be a good thing. The memory companies (especially DRAM) have be come much more disciplined about overinvestment. In fact most of the recent growth in semiconductor is entirely due to prices firming in memories. With the big 3 EDA companies going in slightly different directions there is some of that too. “A certain amount of not beating each other into the ground is good.”

    Management of all this is a big change since companies are change averse. Change can be driven by stress (no alternative) or courage. Stress is the easy way, but great companies have courage. They are not always successful but courage and perseverance are very valuable. The smoke has not cleared yet but for sure the age of IoT (smart everything) is a massive wave that will impact mankind.

    Manufacture + design + EDA has moved the world already and it will continue to do so. But exponential ambition only gets paid for linearly, which is one of the challenges of being courageous.


    Eyes Meet Innovations at DAC

    Eyes Meet Innovations at DAC
    by Pawan Fangaria on 06-14-2015 at 7:00 am

    It gives me a very nice, somewhat nostalgic, feeling after attending the 52[SUP]nd[/SUP] DAC. There was a period during my final academic year in 1990 and my first job when I used to search through good technical papers in DAC proceedings and try implementing those concepts in my project work. In general, representation from ‘R&D teams’ is less in DAC, unless an engineer has a paper to present. So, I didn’t have many opportunities to attend DAC in the past. Now that I am in consultancy and marketing role, when I attended DAC, I felt it to be overwhelming in terms of dissemination of technological information. I found DAC to be one of the best forums for learning about most of the new innovations in the semiconductor space. We get an opportunity to see the new innovations working through live demos at DAC year after year.

    I must confess that I could not see all of it in DAC 2015; missed a few booths even though I had planned to visit them. The environment was so vibrant from the first day that it was difficult to manage time between various presentations, talks, demos, keynotes, invited talks, panel discussions, and so on to attend one after another. The most interesting part I found about the DAC is that it has many facets of opportunities for everyone to avail of what they desire and strive for. One of my agendas in DAC has been to find out the top innovations of the year. This year also, fortunately being physically present at DAC, I found some of the compelling technologies which are going to add great value in the semiconductor ecosystem. This may not be the whole list of top innovations, but here are the ones I could observe myself.

    ARM IP Tooling Suite: The ARMIP Tooling Suite provides a very innovative and relevant capability for SoC integration in today’s design environment. The Socrates DE provides a design environment where multiple IPs including third party IPs can be configured and assembled together to optimize your BOM for the SoC. There are CoreSight and CoreLink Creators that help in micro-architecture creation and further improvement in configuration efficiency. The whole estimation and creation can be done in a matter of minutes or hours. This solves one of the key issues in the semiconductor design industry where SoCs have to be targeted according to the market segment and integration of right IPs has to be pre-determined for the success of the SoC. This is a key innovation in today’s context; I will be writing more specifics about this separately, stay tuned.

    Veloce + PowerArtist: This is a great example of competitors complimenting their tools for larger benefit of the semiconductor ecosystem. Interestingly this is integration between two competitor tools. Mentor’sVeloce emulator generates real-time dynamic power data for the SoC, and that is read directly by ANSYS’ API for dynamic power analysis in PowerArtist. This approach provides accurate power analysis in order of magnitude lesser time.

    JasperGold Formal Verification Platform: Formal and assertion-based verification technologies are gaining ground in SoC verification space. Designers are not able to use them in the main stream verification, primarily due to lack of ease-of-use. JasperGold platform solves the ease-of-use problem by offering automated ‘Verification Apps’ and seamlessly integrating them with the Incisive Verification Platform and Cadence System Development Suite where coverage driven verification methodology takes place and verification gets further complemented by simulation, emulation and debugging environment.

    Cloud Cube: The Cloud Cube 32 is an innovative solution from S2C that enables FPGA-based prototyping of large SoCs of sizes up to 1.4 billion gates. It provides a complete prototyping platform that lets designers start the design at any stage, from anywhere in the world and the design size can grow up to any extent with this scalable architecture.

    GENUS: A new generation RTL compiler from Cadence that has a massively parallel architecture providing order of magnitude faster synthesis and significant improvement in PPA over previous solution.

    IC Compiler II: A major improvement in Synopsys’ IC Compiler for order of magnitude higher throughput and better QoR of placement and routing.

    Spice Simulation and DFY tools in the cloud: This is a novel idea from ProPlusDesign Solutions, RuntimeDesign Automation and ZenteraSystems where NanoSpice and NanoYield are managed by NetworkComputer workload manager from Runtime DA and run on a public cloud managed and secured by Zentera’s Hybrid Cloud Solution over virtual network.

    These are some of the new innovations of this year. Also, there are good innovative products from previous years which are proving to be valuable by now. We are seeing good new acquisitions as well that are expected to drive more innovations in future. Some of the innovations from past acquisitions (e.g. Jasper acquisition by Cadence) are already visible today. I also learnt about other innovations from past acquisition that are in work and expected to come out soon; will write more about those later.

    Pawan Kumar Fangaria
    Founder & President at www.fangarias.com


    Design Data Management: An Analog IP Porting Case Study

    Design Data Management: An Analog IP Porting Case Study
    by Majeed Ahmad on 06-13-2015 at 9:00 am

    IQ-Analog Corp. offers “off-the-shelf” data converter intellectual property (IP) for multiple foundries. The San Diego, California–based semiconductor design firm also provides analog front-end (AFE) technology that it tailors according to customer needs. And that’s where the dilemma begins.

    IQ-Analog’s customers have different requirements, and they use different foundries and manufacturing processes. For a start, the IP products that IQ-Analog delivers requires customization for a new fab and technology node. They also require back end of line (BEOL) metal stack variations. Furthermore, IQ-Analog has to customize IPs in a tight delivery schedule while leveraging the existing designs.

    Then, there are analog IP porting challenges regarding the availability of similar active and passive components. And different BEOLs and DRC rules lead to manual physical layout modifications. Inevitably, these design updates and verification iterative cycle result in project delays.


    Data management tools allow to pick a coherent set of changes

    According to Dan Woodard, Director of Operations at IQ-Analog, IC design changes happen on multiple axes, and we need to pick these changes from multiple lines of development. “These changes are dynamic with a number IC designers operating on the same data, so we need to reliably select a coherent set of changes.”

    Analog IP Porting: The Solution

    Woodard took the floor at the 52nd Design Automation Conference (DAC) and shared the details of the solution that has worked well for his company. He told the DAC audience that IQ-Analog couples EDA tools to data management tools to keep track of various versions of IP content, including schematics, layout, simulation setups, technology kits, etc.

    That helps the design firm leverage the use of an organized library with numerous tags and branches and assemble the targeted IP core. The combo of EDA and data management tools specifically helps IQ-Analog address customer requirements as the company can clearly establish the project configuration to efficiently leverage its ever-growing library of IP content without redundancies.


    Dan Woodard speaking at DAC’s IP Track

    IQ-Analog, which uses ClioSoft’s SOS data management platform, follows a strict rule-based system using tags and branches. Tags are employed to mark meaningful development milestones while branches are used to represent alternative development paths. The tagging feature in SOS allows labeling a revision with a meaningful name so that a revision of a file can have multiple tags and a tag on a file can be moved to a different revision.

    Next up, the branching feature provides the ability to create an alternative path of development. Sub-branches can be created off branches. Moreover, all branches of development are visible to all design project team members, allowing changes on multiple branches to be selected.

    ClioSoft’s SOS data management platform also provides revision search order (RSO) feature, a priority ordered list of tag and branch names, which serves as a rule to pick revisions to create a workspace. Here, revision with the first matching tag or branch name is selected.

    ADC Case Study

    IQ-Analog’s Woodard presented analog-to-digital converter (ADC) as an example of how analog IP is ported to a chip design. An ADC cell has a poly resistor component for which initial implementation is carried out by creating libraries for all anticipated fabs. These libraries are segregated by branches and tags.


    ADC sub-component example

    “If we want to move to a new fab, we simply update the RSO with the new reference libraries,” Woodard said. “The updated resistor now references the proper cell for the new fab.” He further explained how an IP product containing resistors, capacitors and related analog components is migrated from TSMC 40nm process to GlobalFoundries 40nm process in just two weeks.

    The library has a built-in capability of rapid transition and can move from one foundry technology to another without carrying out the layout work twice. Woodard also showed how retargeting from TSMC’s 40nm BEOL of 5x2x to 6x2z takes just two days. “IQ-Analog was able to maintain TSMC branch and only branched further the layout views in which the metal transitioned above the thin metals.”

    The Net effect

    IQ-Analog’s Woodard told the DAC crowd that a design data management tool like ClioSoft’s SOS allows IC designers to augment only a few items to implement a fix rather than traversing all implementations to incorporate fixes and corrects. “Changing the underlying reference and then re-running verification may be all that is needed for delivery.”


    Analog IP migration from one fab to another

    He also acknowledged the value of using data management tools that comes with the automation of the process; it allows IQ-Analog to reduce the time required to map an analog IP from one foundry node to another.

    The upfront work of creating the content in a given node facilitates an IC designer to implement fixes in all the nodes instantly, saving the time it would take to implement the changes uniquely in each project. “The automation enabled by tools like SOS design data management platform avoids clerical errors that can be manually introduced in mapping from one node to another,” Woodard concluded.

    Also read:

    Why Design Data Management: A View from CERN

    The Secret Sauce for Successful Mixed-signal SoC Tapeouts

    Managing Design Flows in RF Modules


    Extending EUV Lithography

    Extending EUV Lithography
    by Scotten Jones on 06-12-2015 at 1:00 pm

    I have previously written about SPIE day 1 and 2 so I want to wrap up my coverage with some impressions from days 3 and 4. My single biggest take away from the conference is that EUV has made tremendous progress in the last 12 months. Last year the mood of the conference was in my opinion pessimistic with respect to EUV, this year the mood appeared to me to be much more optimistic.
    Continue reading “Extending EUV Lithography”


    eSilicon@Samsung: ASIC Design, IP Enablement, and Cloud Platform

    eSilicon@Samsung: ASIC Design, IP Enablement, and Cloud Platform
    by Paul McLellan on 06-12-2015 at 7:00 am

    Earlier this week at DAC, Javier DeLaCruz of eSilicon presented at the Samsung booth. They presented an introduction to what eSilicon does. However, since what they do has changed over the years it is useful to recap. If you know about eSilicon then you probably think of them as a fabless ASIC company. The old ASIC model back in the 1980s and 1990s was that the system house would do design to netlist and then pass that to the ASIC company who would do physical design, manufacture the design and deliver packaged parts.

    Designs are much more complex these days. eSilicon typically will partner with the customer from the very beginning of the design. So eSilicon either does or helps the customer do:

    • technology selection
    • IP selection
    • design
    • assembly and test development
    • manufacture


    The area where there is the most variation is doing the design itself. If the customer has a lot of design expertise in-house they may basically do the entire design and deliver mask data to eSilicon. If they have none they may deliver some higher level specification of the design and have eSilicon do the design for them.

    Some companies just get eSilicon to do manufacturing. Since eSilicon doesn’t actually have fabs of its own, this seems self-contradictory, but in fact a lot of running a design in production is management and tracking of the design through the manufacturing process. In high volume, a design might be millions of parts per month for many months, so it is not a one-shot deal. eSilicon calls this SMS (for Silicon Manufacturing Services).

    Another area where eSilicon has a lot of expertise is IP selection, especially in memories. They have their own memory IP development groups (mostly in Vietnam). These groups can provide standard IP but they can also customize IP for specific designs. For example, in the chip below, which is a broadband processor for the handheld market, the memory was 50% of the die area but by doing a customized memory solution they saved 20% of the memory area, or 10% of the complete die area.

    eSilicon have also been a pioneer in HBM (high bandwidth memory), starting with HBM1 in 2013 and with HBM2 IP development underway. HBM is thru-silicon-via (TSV) memory stacked on top of the logic die. To be useful, just as with standard DRAM, there needs to be a standard interface (where the TSVs are, what the signals are and so on) and indeed JEDEC produced a standard JESD235. By definition, HBM is not just a design issue, it is a packaging and manufacturing issue too since these are true 3D chips. See the picture to the right.

    Another area where eSilicon has been a pioneer is in bringing more and more of the customer interface online so that it can be accessed by users directly without requiring human involvement. So just as an ATM makes getting money easier and more convenient, so customers can help themselves to:

    • IP selection
    • MPW shuttle quotes
    • Production quotes
    • Design optimization quoting (this one is not untouched by human hand but the early acceptability analysis is)

    These all go out under the new STAR banner (standing for self-service, transparent, accurate, real-time) which I wrote about in detail last week.

    See eSilicon Lyfts Its Game

    Samsung Foundries’ website is here. eSilicon’s website is here.