webinar IPXACT banner

Voltage Limbo Dancing: How Low Can You Go?

Voltage Limbo Dancing: How Low Can You Go?
by Paul McLellan on 03-09-2015 at 7:00 am

All chips these days have to worry about power. Indeed it is typically the top of the priority list of concerns, above performance and even area. Transistors are effectively fast and free, but you can’t have too many of them (at least turned on at once). The most obvious way to reduce power is to lower the supply voltage. This occurs squared in the dynamic power equation and is non-linear in static (leakage) power. This is not just a problem for the most leading edge processes, 14/16/10nm. A lot of designs, especially for IoT, are done in non-leading-edge processes. Indeed, TSMC has recently gone back and produced even lower power versions (ULP) of several of their mature processes that can run at lower voltages than the original processes when they were introduced. The way to get the power to an absolute minimum is to run with the supply voltage as low as possible, but this means that the margins for timing are critical. Being optimistic will lead to outright failure or low yield; being pessimistic leaves a lot of performance and power-reduction on the table.

As is usually the case in EDA, the substitute for pessimism is accuracy. But even using lots of process corners isn’t enough since there is too much variation and it is often impossible to close timing with this approach: fixing the FF corner causes violations at the SS corner and vice versa. Systematic margining will not get you there. It is necessary to explicitly analyze variance since putting the voltage up is not a viable option.

So here are four pictures to scare you!

At very low voltage, process variance can be as much as half the delay, much more than at higher voltages. Inaccuracy in calculating variance is not a second-order effect that can be ignored:

At low voltage, the variation is non-Gaussian (not a normal distribution) and in particular the tails are longer and just guard-banding with a certain number of standard deviations will miss those tails:

Constraints are also affected by process variance and voltage too, and can also be non-Gaussian at very low voltages:

Static timing analysis misses some effects, in particular Miller capacitance, which is a dominant effect below 20nm and especially at low voltage. On high fanout nets such as clocks, STA will miss Miller Capacitance and so miss violations:
So that is scary. What can you do about it?

CLKDA’s portfolio of FX tools is designed to address these issues and let you get the voltage as low as possible by giving you the accuracy you need to be confident of working/yielding silicon.

FX is within 2% of MC SPICE for delay but is 400,000X faster, so can analyze thousands of paths in minutes and full clock-trees in hours. It supports all major foundries and libraries. It is in production down to 14/16nm and is being used in leading SoC designs today.

There are multiple components:

  • Variance FX: the industry standard for timing derates (supports AOCV, POCV and LVF)

    • derates drive process yield into physical flow (STA, P&R, optimization)
    • all cells, arcs, loads and skews
    • 1000 cells per hour using 100 cores
  • Macro FX: extends variance FX to complex logic cells

    • big delay buffers, retention flops, very large flop trays, memories
  • Voltage FX: voltage and variance sensitivity for delay and constraints for cell libraries

    • analyze library across voltage operating points
    • identify at-risk cells in library
    • extend to process and temperature
  • Clock FX: full-chip clock tree analysis, SPICE accurate insertion delay and skew

    • automatically finds clock trees
    • corner, global corner/statistical or full statistical
    • measure delay, crosstalk, voltage effects
    • fast: 100M instance 20nm design in under 2 hours
  • Path FX: run tens of thousands of paths in just minutes, identifies timing surprises no other STA tool can find

    • SPICE-accurate path analysis
    • timing waivers, multi-voltage paths, PVT path sweeps, black box timing models,

The FX platform can be used across the entire design process from library design, through floorplanning, physical design, clock tree generation, optimization and signoff.

There are lots more details about the FX platform on the CLKDA website here.


Is Cadence the Best EDA Company to Work for?

Is Cadence the Best EDA Company to Work for?
by Daniel Nenni on 03-08-2015 at 7:00 am

Apparently that is the case. Honestly my choice would have been Mentor but I can easily make an argument for Cadence based on my discussions with the foundries and their top customers but more on that later.

Fortune Magazine last week added Cadence to the 2015 list of “100 Best Companies to Work For” citing a cultural transformation driving the company’s recent success. They are referring to the hiring of Lip-Bu Tan as CEO of course. At first some said he wouldn’t stay as CEO but that was more than six years ago, right?

“Being named to FORTUNE’S list of 100 Best Companies to Work For is a tremendous honor,” said Tan. “It speaks to the achievements of our employees, and to the strength of our culture. The enthusiasm of employees for innovation and solving customer problems is central to who we are and has been a critical component in our success.”

I started my semiconductor career right out of college moving to Silicon Valley in the early 1980s when EDA was just getting started. It was dominated by DMV (Daisy, Mentor, Valid) when two smaller start-ups merged (ECAD and SDA) in 1988 to create Cadence with Joe Costello as CEO. Joe was quite a character and I credit him with making EDA an exciting place to work. Unfortunately after Joe left in 1997 Cadence seemed to lose its way. In January 2009 Lip-Bu Tan joined Cadence as President and CEO after serving on the Cadence Board of Directors for five years. To me that was a turning point which brought Cadence back to what they are today, an industry leader. Cadence stock agrees as it has quintupled since Lip-Bu took over as President and CEO.

In regards to the fabless semiconductor ecosystem, I would say I have my finger on the pulse as much or more than most. I routinely meet with the foundries and their top customers and listen to the latest EDA tales of woe. Over the last three years however I have noticed a positive turn to the Cadence stories. One large fabless customer who is a notorious complainer told me recently that they have the best relationship with Cadence today than they have ever had which is going on 20+ years now. Same with the foundries, you can clearly see this through the level of engagement via Hsinchu visits, PDKs, conferences, webinars, and other collaborative activities.

Speaking of that, Wednesday seems to be foundry day at CDN Live this week. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend as I’m in Hsinchu but SemiWiki bloggers Paul McLellan and Tom Simon will be there for some live coverage. If I was able to attend however this would be my must see list:

  • Cadence In-Design and Signoff Tools Certified for ST’s 28nm and 14nm FD-SOI Technologies
  • Tempus (TM) Timing Signoff Solution for Certification in 16FF/10FF TSMC
  • Flows Tackling Coloring, Cell Pin Access, Variability for 2nd Gen Patterning and 2nd Gen FinFET at TSMC 10nm Using Cadence EDI System
  • 10nm Parasitic Challenges and How It Is Addressed by Industry’s Most Accurate FinFET Extraction Tool; Quantus Extraction

Anything FD-SOI and 10nm of course because those are the trending keywords on SemiWiki…


Semiconductor in China: Is 3rd Time a Charm?

Semiconductor in China: Is 3rd Time a Charm?
by Paul McLellan on 03-07-2015 at 7:00 am

China has recently announced extremely ambitious plans for becoming more self-sufficient in semiconductors. Today China is about 1/3 of the worldwide IC market but about 90% of that is imported. Think of something like the iPhone assembled in Shenzen with chips from TSMC, Samsung, Hynix, Toshiba/Sandisk , Micron and more (Taiwan, Korea, Japan and US).

China is already a growing market for IC equipment. This year it will be $5B, 12% of the world market with another $6B for materials, 13% of the world market.

China has actually been involved with semiconductor for a long time, staring with work done in 1964 not long after the original invention of the IC. They have had several attempts to build domestic manufacturing starting in the 1970s importing production lines from Japan. In that era, when a fab was cheap, there were actually many lines established in China, but mostly for R&D and not commercial. In the late 1980s they created the China Electronics Corporation by the then Ministry of Electronics Industry. They had a joint project with Lucent based on a Lucent process, training and design, although it was not truly successful. Then a joint-venture with NEC in 1997 with a 200mm fab. In that era, SEMI predicted 20 fabs in China but that never materialized. In 2000 SMIC was created and was more successful. There is more capacity in China now, 8% of the world total, but about 2/3 of it is overseas companies operating fabs there (Intel, Samsung, Hynix).

In June 2014 China announced a national project to develop a truly domestic IC industry covering IC design, IC manufacturing, advanced packaging and even semiconductor equipment and materials. There are plans to invest $21B with a more market-based structure, and as much as $100B including local funds from Beijing, Shanghai, Wuhan and Hefei.

To start with now the focus is on 32/28nm and medium to high-end assembly and test. They also plan to develop 200mm 45nm and 65nm equipment. From now through 2020 they plan 20% annual growth which, if achieved, will grow the market to $143B which is 3.5X 2013 levels. The roadmap for 14/16nm is in that timeframe.

They have some very specific goals:

  • IC manufacturing: mass production for 32/38 nm process shall be realized by 2015 and 16/14 nm process shall be realized by 2020.
  • IC design: certain key technologies (e.g. mobile smart terminal, network communication) shall approach international first-tier level by 2015, and other strategic technologies shall achieve international leading edge by 2020.
  • IC packaging and test: revenue from mid-end to high-end technologies shall be more than 30% of total revenue by 2015, and key technologies shall achieve international leading edge by 2020.
  • Material: 12-inch silicon wafers produced in China shall be ready for use in device production by 2015, and enter global supply chain by 2020.
  • Equipment: 65-45nm key equipment manufactured in China shall be used into production line by 2015, and enter global supply chain by 2020.

During SEMICON China, SEMI China will host the Tech Investment Forum-China 2015 on March 18th. The Tech Investment Forum has already become an important platform between investment and pan-semiconductor industry in China. This year, Mr. Wenwu Ding, the CEO of China National IC Investment Fund will give a keynote speech.

SEMICON China is March 17-19th at the SNIEC in Shanghai. Kenotes on March 17th in the Kerry Hotel Pudong are by Lisa Su, President and CEO of AMD; Tzu-Yin Chiu, CEO of SMIC; Xinchao Wang, CEO of JCET; Simon Yang, CEO of XMC; Michael Hurlston, EVP worldwide sales for Broadcom; and Lei Shi, President National Fujitsu Microelectronics. Full details are here.


Is Semiconductor Technology a Strategic Industry?

Is Semiconductor Technology a Strategic Industry?
by admin on 03-06-2015 at 7:00 pm

Dependence on electronics is acute in all fields today. This includes both civilian and military use. Whether the technology used is state of the art or classic in nature, importance is pointed to the necessity of solid state electronic hardware in everyday life. In such an environment the need to ensure the availability of semiconductors is critical for any user, be it commercial or defense sectors or the government. Thus system producers need to ensure a robust supply source for all their needs that is dependable under all circumstances. Therefore, governments get involved in this activity as part of governance responsibilities.

A compounding factor is the various forms of technology control. Export regulations by government on certain sensitive and/or dual use technologies puts a question mark on the availability of certain kinds of materials/products for dependent markets and economies. This leads to a growing cry for development of indigenous or local supply sources.

Although the semiconductor industry is spread across the world over, the technology to manufacture it in commercially significant levels is limited to very few countries (USA, Korea, Japan, etc.). The underlying need for dependable infrastructure – both in cost and availability – has forced most aspirants to look the other way when it comes to thinking of implementation of this demand, in certain geographies. China invested heavily in the semiconductor manufacturing sector during 1990s and early 2000s. Thus it has been able to establish itself as a formidable force that other countries take note of. The extent of government support that enabled this transformation is significant. Even the USA is known to give considerable monetary support to the semiconductor industry – openly and in concealed forms – towards developing and maintaining this technology leadership.

Also Read:CDN is Live in Silicon Valley!

An additional factor is the sheer monetary cost to the exchequer. The world semiconductor trade is about 300 billion dollars. India is a significant consumer with its growing market for mobile communication and other electronics consumables. India imported over $25B of electronics during 2010-11; this included over $6.5B for semiconductors. Significantly, this import accounts for almost 100% of the semiconductors consumed by Indians; which means, the local production of semiconductor hardware is almost zero. The significant investment and activity seen in the electronics/IT world in India – by leading and startup companies alike – are primarily in design, software and services sectors.

India’s own annual electronics import bill is expected to cross its humongous oil import bill (over 100 billion dollars annually) in the next few years. Given all these factors there is indeed a dire need to ensure local manufacture. The Indian Government has given an in-principle approval for 2 fabs to be set up with technical know-how sourced from global majors. It is here that the “Make in India” campaign by the (now, not so) new Indian Government is pushing for the manufacture of semiconductor chips in India. Given the flux and the large number of coordinating activities that abound in these kinds of endeavors, it is but natural for things to take time, especially in a country like India.

Indeed, the semiconductor industry has turned out to be one that can be called strategic in nature!

Dr. PRADEEP JANA, Ph.D.


Intel and Samsung in Barcelona

Intel and Samsung in Barcelona
by Paul McLellan on 03-06-2015 at 7:00 am

This week it was Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. Everyone who is anyone in mobile is there. Unfortunately I’m not since Barcelona is one of my favorite cities to visit. Two companies that set high expectations before the show were Samsung and Intel.

Samsung announced the new Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge smartphones on Sunday. Since there had already been so many leaks there were not a lot of surprises. Yes, it has a metal back, a (very) high resolution screen, fingerprint sensor, 32/64/128GB internal storage, 16Mpx camera, support for Samsung Pay using NFC or MFT, wireless charging. And like the iPhone, no expansion microSD slot, no removable battery, not waterproof. In fact, it is like the iPhone in so many ways, clearly designed to compete with it head-on at the high-end and also outspec Xiomi’s phones who are the big competition in China. It will be available April 10th.

From a chip point of view, the application processor is the Octacore Exynos. That is a big.LITTLE ARM processor with 4 Cortex-A57 and 4 Cortex-A53 cores, running at 2.1GHz and 1.5GHz respectively. Previous high end Galaxy phones, at least in most markets, used Qualcomm Snapdragon processors. It presumably also has the Exynos LTE modem although I’m not sure whether it is all integrated on one chip with the AP or not.

Anyway, the phone has been getting great reviews, although some people are complaining about some of the steps they consider backward (no removable battery for example). It is microscopically thinner than the iPhone 6 and has higher resolution display, giving them some bragging rights at least.

The other widely anticipated announcement was Intel. Brian Krzanich gave one of the keynotes and also Intel had a press conference on Monday. Before the show something big was anticipated since, well, Brian is Intel’s CEO and so just by being there is indicating something about Intel’s commitment to mobile. With the PC market growing at best slowly, and mobile continuing to be the way of the future, Intel needs to be in this market.

Apple, as I’m sure you know, builds its own application processors (currently A8 with A9 expected soon). As mentioned above, Samsung builds their own application processors (Exynos). Qualcomm and Mediatek have almost all of the market for merchant application processors for other mobile handset manufacturers. The high end, where you would expect Intel to be competing based on its history and its historic high silicon margins, is thus proprietary leaving Intel to fight it out on the very competitive lower end.

So what did Intel announce? They renamed SoFIA to x3 for low cost smartphones and tablets. They say they have 20 customers committed to deliver designs. Remember, this is the follow-on design from the one that they have been shipping negative revenue with, basically paying customers as much as $40 to use the part. For higher-end tablets they renamed Cherry Trail to x5 and x7. They introduced a new LTE modem, the XMM 7360 with download speeds up to 450Mbps. The timetables of some of these chips seem to be a little accelerated from previous announcements, but the details remain a bit sketchy. They announced that customers include Acer, ASUS, Dell, HP, Lenovo and Toshiba, who have already committed to deliver devices on this platform.

The Intel press release is cleverly worded so if you don’t look closely it seems the level of integration is greater than it is:Combining 64-bit multi-core Intel Atom processors together with 3G or 4G LTE connectivity, the integrated communications SoC combines the applications processor, image sensor processor, graphics, audio, connectivity and power management components in a single system chipset.

This is what they said during their investor meeting back in November:

They seemed to have pulled the schedules in somewhat. I am no longer sure which of these chips are built by TSMC and which in Intel’s own fabs. The SoFIA MID on the above table is explicitly “Intel fab” so I think the rest are probably chipsets combining an 64-bit Atom-based processor built in Intel fabs with an LTE modem built in TSMC 28nm until late next year when they will finally have a combined AP+modem on an Intel process (the SoFIA MID was explicitly called out as Intel Manufacturing in the November table). Anyway, at MWC Intel now say that Cherry Trail aka x3/x5 will be out in 1H (presumably something like June) whereas it was second half before.

But it all comes over as too little too late. If Intel doesn’t have any flagship design wins I don’t see how they can compete against Qualcomm and Mediatek. Intel is a “manufacturing powerhouse” but that usually means they have great technology for the high-end microprocessor business. Whether that is the technology of choice for the low-end mobile business I’m dubious about.

You can see a video of Intel’s press conference at MWC 2015 (about 30 minutes) here.

Also Read: CDN is Live in Silicon Valley!


Blogging for Consultants

Blogging for Consultants
by Daniel Payne on 03-05-2015 at 9:00 pm

Paul McLellan wrote about how he stumbled into blogging and it inspired me to share my story as well. I grew up in Minnesota and attended the U of Minnesota earning a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering so that I could design computer chips. After interviewing in 1978 with HP, IBM, Intel and Motorola I decided to join Intel in Oregon and design DRAM chips. It was amazing how little design automation there was, and correspondingly how much grunt work and manual design was required to design NMOS circuits at the transistor level. I kept asking management, “Where is the software to automate DRC, LVS and other tasks?”

Their reply was, “We hired you to manually do that, so get back to work.”

Clearly the short-term thinking was at operation here, and after 8 years of full-custom, transistor-level IC design work, I joined my first EDA company, Silicon Compilers in 1986. The president was Phil Kaufman, and he was another ex-Intel guy that knew how to run a company. At SCI I learned all about being an Applications Engineers, AE Manager, Technical Marketing Engineer and Product Marketing Manager. Along the way SCI acquired many companies, and then got acquired by Mentor Graphics.

I stayed at EDA companies until 2004 helping teams with a wide range of EDA tools (SPICE to HLS), and then became a freelance EDA consultant, offering technical and product marketing services. My networking on LinkedIn and keeping in touch with former co-workers continued to grow my consulting business. I discovered a monthly networking group that had lunch in the Portland, Oregon area and there met John Blyler.

In 2008 John started talking about his blogging at Chip Design Magazine, and asked if I would consider blogging. It sounded fun, and I knew that it would raise my consultant profile to prospective EDA companies, so I blogged for the next three years at Chip Design Magazine. I always wondered if anyone was reading my blogs and then one year I attended a DAC conference and was on the escalator when two engineers from downstairs pointed up at me and shouted, “Hey, aren’t you Daniel Payne, the blogger?”

Wow, who knew that bloggers could be popular?

At the 2011 DAC I met Daniel Nenni and he soon asked me to blog for his start-up site, SemiWiki. I had been reading Dan’s blogs and heard his vision for crowd-sourcing, and being an open platform for discussion on all things semiconductor, IP and EDA. It sounded like a novel concept, and there was a revenue model, so I accepted and began blogging at SemiWiki.

Every morning I read each new blog article to continue my education about our industry and keep up to date. Recently we’ve also begun focusing on the Forums, I’m mostly over in the EDA Software forum. I also view what’s happening on LinkedIn, review my RSS feed of interesting content, and search for tweets of interest by using a filter:
#SemiEDA OR #SemiIP OR #52DAC OR FinFET


At first on Twitter we were using #EDA but quickly found out the EDA also stands for Economic Development Agency, Electronic Directory Assistance, and is a popular search phrase in Japan and Brazil, all not related to Electronic Design Automation. Now we’ve been encouraging Twitter users to use #SemiEDA to be more focused on our industry, along with #SemiIP. So I’m spending about an hour per day reading and learning about the ever-changing news. Follow me @Daniel_J_Payne

One of the most visited Wiki pages is the one showing every EDA merger and acquisition since our industry began, thanks mostly to the efforts of Ian Getreu, another consultant in the Portland area.

Blogging at SemiWiki is a wonderful way for consultants to contribute to our industry, make new contacts and get new clients. I’ve enjoyed blogging about over a dozen different companies in the EDA and IP space, and with SemiWiki I learn something new every day.

Also Read: CDN is Live in Silicon Valley!

When I’m not blogging or consulting in EDA, you can find me out riding a road bike for fitness and a bit of competition by posting on Strava.com. If you ever visit the Portland, Oregon area, then look me up and I’ll meet you for a cup of coffee.



Intel NOT Inside Sematech?

Intel NOT Inside Sematech?
by Robert Maire on 03-05-2015 at 1:00 pm

Rumor that Intel has quit Sematech confirmed by website?
Potential industry impact-
Is this a consolidation by-product?
Do we need a trade group?
Does it benefit Intel?

We have heard from several sources over the last few days that Intel has quit Sematech, the semiconductor industry trade group focused on technology development and advancement. This does not appear to be confirmed by any press announcement from either party and could easily be wrong but Intel is noticably absent from the membership roster on the Sematech website where it had previously been listed . We are dubious that such a glaring mistake could have been made by accident.

Sematech history…
Sematech was formed as a trade group focused on furthering technology and promoting and protecting the US semiconductor industry. There is a similar trade group in Europe IMEC performing a similar function for European companies. If the measure of success was protecting the US semiconductor industry we would probably give it a failing grade based upon the current state of the US semiconductor industry as compared to when Sematech was founded. Its obvious that most of the industry has moved overseas.

Limited technology successes…
There has probably been more success on the technology front however the vast majority of innovation is done by semiconductor and semiconductor equipment companies on their own. Sematech does fund and oversee a number of technology initiatives that have no singular home or main sponsor in the industry or don’t have the proper ROI that participants require. It could be also viewed as a central R&D function or a replacement of the early version of bell labs that did basic pioneering research

Has consolidation eliminated the need?
When the semiconductor industry was fragmented with 50-100 chip companies, pooling R&D resources makes a lot of sense as no single company could support many of the long range projects and there was communal benefit. Now with 3 or 4 behemoths in the industry each of which can drop hundreds of millions on a project there may be less motivation to pool resources.

With the consolidation of the equipment industry each of the surviving players is so big they too have the resources to do R&D on their own and clearly don’t want to share any breakthroughs. The only project that has seen significant pooled resources was ASML’s passing the hat around for EUV development which was done outside of the auspices of Sematech anyway.

Intel passing the baton to Asia?
Intel has been the standard bearer, flag carrying advocate of Sematech as well its leading financial supporter as dues are based on financial model. Given that Intel has now fallen to number three in capital spending behind TSMC and Samsung the role seems to make less sense. It was unclear to us if Intel got an appropriate return on its Sematech investment and as Intel is watching its expenditures ever more closely they may have done that calculus and decided the resources could better be invested elsewhere (like buying into the Chinese market)

Can Sematech survive?
In our view its unclear if Sematech can survive the loss of Intel or if it will start a rush for the exit doors. IMEC could see a similar fate. Maybe Sematech could move to Asia?

What does it mean to equipment companies?

This is clearly a positive for the big four equipment companies, ASML Eteris, LRCX and KLAC and a negative for smaller equipment companies. Likely a negative for EUV as Sematech has been a supporter. Probably neutral to most semiconductor companies and likely a positive for Intel.

Robert Maire
Semiconductor Advisors LLC

Also Read:CDN is Live in Silicon Valley!


Blogging for Dummies

Blogging for Dummies
by Paul McLellan on 03-05-2015 at 7:00 am

I am often asked how I became a blogger (or a journalist if you want to make it sound more professional). I think people assume that I planned it in some way but I never did. Life is what happens while you are making other plans. To see how unlikely it is, you need to know a bit of my background.

I have a PhD in computer science so I’m actually a total geek, not at all the obvious qualification for being a writer (although all PhDs have at least managed to write one extensive document, their thesis). I started my career as a programmer and then moved into management.

In a roundabout way I ended up as CEO of Compass for just under the last year of its existence. My big claim to fame was that having had 5 quarters of sequentially declining revenue I managed to produce 3 quarters of sequentially increasing revenue, which was enough to put together a roadshow and we ended up selling Compass to Avant!

I then went and ran engineering at Ambit and, when it was acquired by Cadence, I moved into marketing. I discovered that I was an unusual mixture, very technical but good at writing, and creating and giving presentations.

After some stints in system companies, I was a marketing consultant. One of my gigs was working a couple of days a week for a power-reduction EDA company called Envis. One day the board fired the CEO and they asked me to run the company, so I got my second CEO gig. The technology turned out not to be much good and I told the investors they should wind it up, but that didn’t fit their plans so I helped them bring in a new CEO (and he flew it into the ground).

But it was the start of 2008, the downturn was in full swing. There was no consulting business to be had. Big companies terminate all the consultants before they start layoffs. Startups terminate all their consultants since they realize they will not get any more cash for a long time. For over 6 months I was literally on unemployment, collecting my $1800/month from the state.

In the meantime I talked to Ron Wilson (then) at EDN and agreed to blog unpaid for them. I started the EDAgraffiti blog and for the best part of a year I produced a blog every weekday on EDA or something related. It turned out that being able to write reasonably well and having a strong technical background is a good combination. Also, a fairly rare one: there are many good writers and many good technologists but not many who are competent at both. The best of those blogs got put together in the EDAgraffiti book, that Wally Rhines told me was “the best book on EDA” although I pointed out that since it was the only book on EDA that was a pretty low bar. It is still available.


Dan Nenni was starting SemiWiki at that point. He asked me if I wanted to join and I agreed. One of the perks turned out to be that I am truly “press” and so get free passes to pretty much any conference/symposium I want to attend, provided I write about it, which makes it fairly easy to keep up with the industry. I still put out a blog pretty much every day, just like I did in EDAgraffiti days (actually more since I usually do one on Sunday for the weekend newletter too).

Also Read: CDN is Live in Silicon Valley!

So that is how I became a blogger/journalist. I cover everything from embedded software at the high level all the way down to lithography and process, along with everything in between. FinFETs, SADP, TSV, EUV, DSA, SMP, FPGA, mobile, mP, 10nm, HLS, UVM, RET, SP&R, DRC, iOS, FD-SOI. Find an acronym and I’ve probably covered it!

Buy the books: EDAgraffitior Fabless. Or read the blog…wait, you already are!


Three Colorful Bytes from the NXP History

Three Colorful Bytes from the NXP History
by Majeed Ahmad on 03-04-2015 at 7:00 pm

The proposed merger of NXP and Freescale, which creates a bigger semiconductor outfit, also brings forth some fascinating history bytes from the technology heritage that these two spin-offs carry from their respective corporate parents. In 2006, Philips Electronics sold its chip business division Philips Semiconductors to a consortium of private equity investors. The name NXP stood for the consumer’s “next experience.”

Likewise, Motorola Inc. made the Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector autonomous in 2004 and renamed the new silicon-focused outfit as Freescale Semiconductor. This blog traces some parts of the NXP heritage that spans over the past four decades.

NXP: A Fabless Model Pioneer

The Semiwiki Forumuser hist78 has chronicled how TSMC’s Morris Chang found a small audience among semiconductor companies for his revolutionary idea of a pure-play fab back in the mid-1980s. Intel, TI, and Philips gave him a chance to make a presentation, and eventually, both Intel and TI said no.


Philips’ early investment and technology transfer were vital in TSMC success

It was Philips Electronics that agreed to invest and do the technology-transfer to help jumpstart TSMC while owning a 28 percent stake of TSMC during its formative years. Later on, Philips gradually sold all of its shares in TSMC with huge profit, but that’s another story. In retrospect, it was Philips decision to invest in TSMC during the mid-1980s that kick-started the fabless revolution, which in turn, changed the semiconductor landscape forever.

Buy VLSI, Buy SoC

San Jose, California–based VLSI Technology was a pioneer in ASIC, SoC and semiconductor process technologies. It became an early vendor of standard cell ASICs during the early 1980s and dominated the PC chipsets business in the next decade. In 1999, Philips Semiconductors—the precursor of NXP Semiconductors—made a hostile bid for VLSI Technology and eventually acquired the ASIC pioneer for around a billion dollars.


VLSI was an ASIC and SoC pioneer

Apparently, Philips faced difficulties in custom designs quickly moving to new process generations, an area where VLSI excelled with its broad array of chip design libraries and tools. Moreover, the purchase seemed to be stimulated by Philips’ growth and success in the mobile handset chips business. The VLSI buy went a long way for the Dutch company in the unfolding SoC era that followed in the years after this acquisition.

NFC: First Invent, Then Rescue

NXP is a pioneer in near-field communication (NFC) technology; its parent company Philips Electronics developed and launched the contactless access technology in collaboration with Sony back in the early 2000s. The NFC technology was originally developed for the transport and convenience store segments in large Asian cities like Hong Kong and Tokyo. The NFC-based Octopus Card for Hong Kong’s subway service has been a smashing success.


Hong Kong’s Octopus Card: An Early NFC Success Story
(Image: MLP Forums)

But it was tap-to-pay mobile service where NFC was going to make it big. Mobile commerce advocates said that cash would become a thing of the past and that the future of digital money was inside the NFC chip residing in smartphones. However, the promise of mobile payments remained in doldrums until 2014, when Apple and NXP joined hands to develop the first viable tap-to-pay service on the iPhone 6.

Also Read: CDN is Live in Silicon Valley!

Apple Pay—a hugely successful mobile payment service that provided a seal of approval to the NFC technology—used an NXP SoC device that combined the Secure Element (SE) microcontroller with an NFC radio. The SE-centric hardware in the iPhone 6 allowed over-the-air provisioning by the banks and credit card companies and kept mobile operators out of the payment ecosystem.

Majeed Ahmad is author of books Smartphone: Mobile Revolution at the Crossroads of Communications, Computing and Consumer Electronicsand Mobile Commerce 2.0: Where Payments, Location and Advertising Converge.


Synflow and Cx

Synflow and Cx
by Paul McLellan on 03-04-2015 at 9:00 am

When hardware designers hear about a new language their heart sinks. We already have Verilog, SystemVerilog and VHDL. And if you go up a level, we have C, C++ and SystemC. Isn’t that enough? However, if you tell a software engineer about a new language they are interested, there are hundreds of programming language and hundreds of thousands of “little languages” that a particular piece of software reads and executes. In SoC design, it turns out that moving up a level from RTL generally does not mean going to one of the C-like languages but doing IP assembly instead.

But there is a paradigm shift going on in design, especially for FPGA but in ASIC too. When the era of schematic-based design came to an end to be replaced with RTL Synthesis, by and large it was not the guys who had used schematics all their lives who suddenly learned RTL. They had enough of a problem with their schematics on a screen rather than paper. Instead, new young Turks who had learned Verilog in school drove the transition. In the same way, software engineers want to be able to design chips with all the hardware stuff taken care of by the tools. In fact this is a trend. Whereas in the past hardware guys didn’t try and write embedded software, and embedded software guys didn’t do hardware, increasingly there are engineers that do both hardware and software design. A survey by EEtimes a couple of years ago shows the figures clearly.


But there is a big problem, the languages the hardware guys use are no good for software engineers. The RTL level languages are too close to the hardware. The C level languages either are not inherently concurrent or get concurrency by unwieldy libraries. They are just unnatural from anyone outside the EDA microcosm. Neither RTL nor C/C++ are really acceptable to a software engineer compared to creating a new language.

Synflow is a company based in France that has done just that. They have created a language Cx targeted at bringing hardware design within reach of any software developer.

The goals of the language are:

  • C-like syntax and structures
  • Cycle-accurate behavior
  • Strong bit-accurate typing
  • Fast learning curve
  • Design and verification

Of course a language on its own is not much use. It needs a development environment and, for code that is ultimately going to be implemented in hardware, the code generation (RTL generation) needs to be really first rate. Ease of use is never a substitute for optimal design. The development environment, ngDesign, contains a lot of technology:

  • Cx editor
  • FSM view and design view
  • Git version control system
  • Project manager
  • Sanity checkers
  • Clock domain crossing (CDC) checkers
  • HDL code-generators
  • Simulator

The various sanity checks, such as CDC checking or unconnected port checking, are done on the fly as the code is created. The output HDL is truly portable and can be used with any tool flow (EDA or FPGA). It is vendor-neutral, readable VHDL and Verilog that honors the usual coding style rules. What does the language look like? Well, you can’t tell much about a language by just looking at it rather than using it, but like this:


Recently Synflow put some information about Cx up on Hacker News (if you are not a software engineer you have probably never heard of it, but it is run by Y-combinator that you probably have heard of). The hits on their website went up by a couple of orders of magnitude from a handful a day to hundreds. As I said earlier, software engineers are open to a new powerful language in a way that hardware design engineers are not. They know that learning a new language is trivial and if it helps them get a job done better than another language then that is the way to go.

So is anybody using it? They have users in all parts of the world: USA, Europe, Canada, Japan, China. They are doing all sorts of designs, both control and datapath oriented, and getting results comparable from hand-crafted RTL.

Here is a comment from an engineer at one of the biggest semiconductor companies who has been evaluating Cx:I am a strong believer in constrained language definition over the use of general
purpose languages with target libraries.

The tools are are available for evaluation from the company’s website and are now shipping to paying customers.

Synflow’s website is here.

Also Read: CDN is Live in Silicon Valley!