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

Eric Esteve to Present during CDN Live 2014 in Munich

Eric Esteve to Present during CDN Live 2014 in Munich
by Eric Esteve on 05-01-2014 at 4:00 am

I will have the privilege to give an “IP Outlook” presentation during next Cadence event in Europe, CDN-Live to be held in Munich the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] to 21[SUP]st[/SUP] of May. I had a look at the agenda, and the conference will be pretty busy, especially on Tuesday, as there will be more than fifty presentations, starting at 10:30 after the keynote talk. IPNEST presentation will be held in the Design IP track, at 15:00. I will present the 2013 results for USB (split between USB 3.0 and other USB), PCI Express, Memory Controller IP, MIPI (all specifications), SATA, HDMI/DisplayPort/MHL and Ethernet. This Interface IP segment is weighting $465 million in 2013, this represent a 13% year-to-year growth. If we look at the overall design IP size, Gartner has evaluated it to be in the $2,450 million range in 2013, so the Interface IP segment may look not that large, with less than 20% weight. But if you look at the licensing only part of the design IP market, removing the royalty part, then you realize that the Interface IP segment represent 35% of the up-front license share. Not that bad…

I don’t know if Verification IP (VIP) should be ranked within Design IP or EDA, but that I know if that most of the VIP license sales are related to Interface IP (if you include the Memory Models in this segment). In fact, the VIP not related to Interface is related to interconnects, like AMBA, OCP or Network-on-Chip. Thus, if you aggregate Interface IP and VIP, you realize that the cumulated market was above $600 million in 2013… You probably better understand why Cadence has invested so much last year to be in the position to build a complete offer in Interface IP and VIP. This cumulated market should pass $1 billion by 2018, not too bad, again!

Let’s talk now about the many (50 -1) other presentations! Cadence hosting the event, the EDA vendor gives many presentations, in “Design IP”, “Verification”, “Automotive”, “Mixed-signal” and more tracks. As this is CDN-Live EMEA, Cadence has put a strong focus on Automotive, as this market segment is very strong in Europe, with players like Audi AG or Robert Bosch giving presentations. That I have noticed when carefully looking at this agenda, is the very strong involvement from Cadence’s customers, with chip makers or system companies like:

  • Analog Devices
  • Audi AG
    Infineon

  • Texas Instruments
  • STMicroelectronics
  • Dream Chip Technologies GmbH
  • Thales Group
  • Infineon
  • GLOBAL FOUNDRIES
  • Dialog Semiconductor
  • Cambridge Silicon Radio
  • ARM
  • NXP
  • Imagination Technologies Group
  • IMEC
  • Methods2Business
  • Bull

giving presentations, some of these proposing two or even three topics. There is also an “Academic” track, with presentations given by Universities all around Europe (I just could not figure out if “Lund University” in Sweden has any link with Martin Lund, Cadence senior VP in charge of the IP group…).

If you plan to attend to CDN-Live in Munich, you can register here
I will join the Dolce Hotel on Monday 19[SUP]th[/SUP] evening, leaving on Wednesday, I will be happy to chat with any of the Semiwiki reader who will attend to the conference!

Eric Esteve from IPNEST

You can download the Table of Content of the “Interface IP Survey” I will have a paper copy with me if you want to take a look at this best-seller survey from IPNEST.

More Articles by Eric Esteve…..

lang: en_US


What Do You Do When You Are Not Designing?

What Do You Do When You Are Not Designing?
by Paul McLellan on 04-30-2014 at 10:07 pm

DAC is coming up in a month (OMG less than 4 weeks and we are so not ready I hear a hundred marketing people cry out). That gives you four weeks (and a couple of days) to tell Mentor what you do in your spare time that you are passionate about (spare time, I hear a hundred engineers cry out, what is that?) and you could win $300.

For DAC, Mentor has developed the “Passion Project”, a fun contest to celebrate engineering design creativity. We all know engineers are extremely intelligent and creative in the workplace. How about outside of work? The Mentor Facebook contest is meant to encourage engineers to show what they love to do in their spare time. Mentor is asking them to share this passion with other engineers and those attending DAC. They can do this by submitting a photo and brief description (150 characters) of their hobby. It might be anything: building a log cabin, running a recording studio, building websites for non-profits, to pick up just three of the passions already entered in the contest.

I’m not sure it really qualifies as a passion, more of a quirk, but I love doing cryptic crosswords. I do the (London) Times crossword almost every day. It comes online at midnight UK time which is 4pm in the afternoon in California so it is a nice way to unwind in the early evening. And a glass of wine goes really well with crosswords too.

So what is a cryptic crossword as opposed to the kind you get in the US where the clues are plain definitions. Each clue splits into two parts. One part is a definition (often called the literal) and the other part is another very convoluted way to get to the same answer (the wordplay). You don’t know where the split is, and you don’t know if the wordplay precedes or follows the literal. The surface reading of the clue (which is a bit like a newspaper headline) is often misleading too.

For example, today’s Times crossword’s first clue is:Two friends holding bachelor party, finally, in touching way (8 letters)

The answer is PALPABLY. The literal is “in a touching way” and the wordplay is two friends PAL PAL holding bachelor (B), party finally (Y). Yes, I know you have to be weird to enjoy solving these kinds of puzzles.

One more (10 across):Racists smashed phoneboxes (10 letters)

It is XENOPHOBES. Literal is “racists” and it is an anagram of phoneboxes (smashed is what is called the anagrind, that indicates an anagram, and “phoneboxes” is the anagrist, the letters to be rearranged).

The contest ends on June 3 at 11:59pm PST, and the winner, who will be chosen at random, will be awarded a $300 prize, on Wednesday of DAC, June 4 at 3:30 pm. at the Mentor booth #1733.

Once again, the contest Facebook page is here.


More articles by Paul McLellan…


FD-SOI Not Just For France Any More, China Signs On?

FD-SOI Not Just For France Any More, China Signs On?
by Paul McLellan on 04-30-2014 at 9:07 pm

The COO of ST Microelectronics, Jean-Marc Chery announced that they have signed a new foundry agreement for FD-SOI. What he actually said doesn’t reveal who the foundry in question is:“We have just signed a strategic agreement with a top-tier foundry for 28nm FD-SOI technology. This agreement expands the ecosystem, assures the industry of high-volume production of ST’s FD-SOI based IC solutions for faster, cooler, and simpler devices and strengthens the business and financial prospects of the Embedded Processing Solutions Segment.”

Of course, at some level it could be anyone but the rumors are that it is SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation) headquartered in Shanghai China. If true, this is very significant. So far ST is the only company that is committed to FD-SOI and it has one fab to run it in at Crolles, just south of Grenoble in France. Plus ST is not really in the foundry business.

But SMIC is firmly in the foundry business. According to the boilerplate at the end of their press releases:Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation is one of the leading semiconductor foundries in the world and the largest and most advanced foundry in mainland China, providing integrated circuit (IC) foundry and technology services at 0.35-micron to 40-nanometer.

    [*=1]headquartered in Shanghai, China
    [*=1]a 300mm fab and a 200mm mega-fab in Shanghai
    [*=1]a 300mm mega-fab in Beijing
    [*=1]a 200mm fab in Tianjin
    [*=1]a 200mm fab project under development in Shenzhen

They also manage a 300mm fab in Wuhan owned by Wuhan Xinxin Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation.

ICInsights reckon that they have a capacity (in 300mm) of 57,000 wafers/month. They obviously have more capacity in total since many of their fabs are 200mm (and I don’t know if the 57K number includes the Wuhan fab).

As the boilerplate says, until now SMIC has had processes down to the 45/40nm node but nothing at 28nm and below. This agreement (if it is them) will give them a 28nm process with an obvious path to 20nm and below over time if they choose to go there. Which they may not since SMIC is never going to be the technology leader, their niche is to build chips for the Chinese market which is extremely cost-sensitive, and 28nm may well be the lowest cost per process transistor.

GlobalFoundries announced in February last year that they had:signed a memorandum of understanding to manufacture the process with the developer, STMicroelectronics. Mike Noonen[then]executive vice president of worldwide marketing and sales at the foundry chip maker[said]that a physical design kit for the process will be available in the first quarter of 2013. The first “risk production” will come from a Globalfoundries wafer fab in 4Q13 and volume production will ramp during the first half of 2014.

That never happened and when I asked GF earlier this year (since I was talking about it at EDPS a couple of weeks ago) they said it was not a priority in 2014. Of course, since then they have announced their 14nm partnership with Samsung so I think they are full-speed ahead on FinFET and will only do FD-SOI if the customer demand is there.

The reason that this is important is that the major negative about FD-SOI is that ST has been the only company committed to it. And they have limited capacity and are not really a foundry, they are an IDM. I have not seen any serious criticism of FD-SOI as a technology, only criticism of the lack of an ecosystem because FinFET has “sucked all the air out of the room.” If SMIC is really signing on then this changes things since there is significant foundry capacity available and probably a significant cost advantage. If customers start to demand volume, GF may well reassess the importance of 28nm FD-SOI and bring it online. I don’t know if they ever licensed the process or just signed an MOU (where, typically, no money changes hands). Since it uses equipment they already have in place for 28nm bulk, it would not be a major effort to bring it up and they could do it in parallel with the 14nm FinFET transfer from Samsung.

Also read: FD-SOI Better Than FinFET?

More articles by Paul McLellan…


Living with DO-254? You need Aldec!

Living with DO-254? You need Aldec!
by Luke Miller on 04-30-2014 at 4:00 pm

I will say that as popular as DO-254 and the like is, I am not the fella for that. It can take the simplest of designs into a realm of test and verification like you have never seen before. Yes, when I am flying I happen to be a big fan of this rigorous testing but you will not find me doing that job anytime soon. While the topic is very dry, it can be a very lucrative one for companies who have mastered the art of requirements writing and proving what is done and not done.

Some companies find themselves with lots of great technologies and solutions but are scared to move into the flight worthiness and safety critical realm, with good reason. They can either buy another company who knows that part of the business or get training. Monday, I had the privilege to sit through a free webinar from Aldec called “DO-254 Verification – Requirements Optimization for Verification”. Aldec knows a thing or two about this stuff and I highly recommend anyone or company who are venturing into this realm to consider Aldec.

Last month I wrote that Aldec is the DO-254 leader, let me expound just a bit more on why. Aldec knows, that the key for DO-254 success is great requirements. Notice I did not say good, but great. This can be the difference from being on track with cost and schedule or mega failure and potentially loss of lives in the extreme situations. No laughing matter. Below is a great slide from the free Aldec webinar.

I have ran into the issue of non-verifiable requirements. They involve lots of meetings, head hitting the wall, frustration, and much money wasted only to have the requirement changed. For us FPGA design weenies, requirement writing in the beginning can be a challenge. We want to implement everything. Aldec gives great guidance here… “Requirements should not describe how a circuit is designed or implemented”. What this means is to let go of some control here and trust the team to do their job while you do yours. An example is the output pin on the FPGA shall toggle at a frequency of 5 Hz, +/- 0.01% jitter and duty cycle when the FPGA is powered on. Notice I did not say you shall use DSP blocks, use LUTs etc… What is the cost of a bad requirement? Aldec quickly identifies this with the following slide below. Note all the expensive peer reviews.

So how does one get a handle on all this? Get training from Aldec and learn, learn, learn. Second, your team must believe the same mission, you cannot suffer to have a few cowboys on the team. All must understand their roles. This is critical. Third, tools. Get tools that will automate any part of the process and reduce the risk of human miscommunication and errors. Aldec has a ton of tools that can help with this process, but is not just limited to DO-254. They include Spec-TRACER, ALINT Design rule checking and of course DO-254/CTS. For example, you may be thinking why do I need LINT rule checking on my VHDL? To make the verification process easier and verifiable you must make sure that all names of the same subject have the same name. For Example what if in the FPGA you call reset ‘RSTn’, in the requirements ‘ResetNOT’, and in drawings ‘nRST’…? Yikes, that is no way to live. Use Aldec tools to make sure you are successful. You may also want to attend the seminar below for a thorough DO-254 training. It will set you apart from your competition for sure.

lang: en_US


RTL Designers Can Win a GoPro Camera at DAC

RTL Designers Can Win a GoPro Camera at DAC
by Daniel Payne on 04-30-2014 at 10:05 am

DACis just 33 days away and who wouldn’t want a cool GoPro camerato play with? Your manager will certainly want you to first check out what’s new at DAC if your job involves getting to RTL signoff on time and within budget. The creative folks at Atrenta have figured out how to attract us with the offer of winning a GoPro camera, however you at least have to attend a product session in their suites to get your name into the drawing, and there will be two winners per day, plus you don’t even have to be present to win (my favorite kind of contest).

In 2013 at the Atrenta booth and suites you heard a lot about IP signoff, and the news this year has morphed into SoC signoff. You’ll have 10 suite sessions to choose from at booth #1933, based upon your specialty, and each session has a simple registration process:

  • IP Signoff – use a standardized set of design and verification checks on internal IP and 3rd party IP
  • SoC Signoff – inspect and integrate IP to create an SoC for a billion or more gates
  • SpyGlass Platform – get to RTL signoff using SpyGlass by analyzing the structure, function, CDC, timing, power, DFT and physical challenges
  • BugScope – discover more corner case bugs using auto-generated assertions, functional coverage properties and verification metric apps
  • SpyGlass Power – try a power management tool flow to estimate power, and optimize RTL
  • SpyGlass Constraints – get timing constraints under control with SDC validation, management and verification
  • SpyGlass CDC & Advanced Lint – reach CDC verification closure faster
  • SpyGlass DFT, DSM, MBIST – improve product quality through higher coverage tests and built-in testability
  • GenSys – use some automation to automate chip assembly
  • SpyGlass Physical – analyze your RTL against physical rules prior to tape-out, while improving your floor plan

DAC has designer tracks each year, and Atrenta engineers are participating in five of these on Monday to Wednesday:

  • A Comprehensive Metrics Driven Methodology to Measure and Improve Soft-IP Quality
  • CDC Aware Power Reduction for Soft IPs
  • SoC Connectivity Checks – Driving Design Intent Validation
  • The Evil’s in the Edits
  • Effective RTL Coding Rules to Avoid Simulation Shoot-Thru

An impressive thing to note about the designer tracks is how most of the speakers and authors are real engineers, not the marketing guys and gals.

There’s a DAC tradition on Sunday where you can arrive early and attend a workshop, so Atrenta is offering an IP workshop along with three other companies which highlights how much collaboration is required to be successful:

  • IPextreme
  • TSMC
  • Sonics, Inc.

Last year at DAC there was a constant buzz around the Atrenta booth and suites, so I expect that buzz to make a repeat performance at the Moscone Center on June 1st to 4th.

lang: en_US


IC/Package/Board – Power, Noise and Reliability from ANSYS (Apache DA) at DAC

IC/Package/Board – Power, Noise and Reliability from ANSYS (Apache DA) at DAC
by Daniel Payne on 04-30-2014 at 10:04 am

ANSYS acquired Apache Design Automation back in June 2011and three years later the name “Apache” is being subdued in favor of using just ANSYS. One thing that I noticed right away was a DACfocus on having actual ANSYS customers talk about their hands-on experience using the EDA tools. The following seven customers are designing for automotive, mobile, IoT and other markets: Continue reading “IC/Package/Board – Power, Noise and Reliability from ANSYS (Apache DA) at DAC”


Kurt Shuler: Arteris Presentation at EDPS 2014

Kurt Shuler: Arteris Presentation at EDPS 2014
by Daniel Nenni on 04-30-2014 at 9:00 am

The Electronic Design Process Symposium is an annual workshop run by the IEEE Computer Society of Silicon Valley and the IEEE Council on Electronic Design Automation. I presented there because it’s devoid of product marketing pitches, and is two days of discussion on technical and process issues in SoC design. My slides are here:

http://www.eda.org/edps/Papers/4-3%20Kurt%20Shuler.pdf

My task for the presentation was to explain how IP reuse and the explosion in on-chip functionality has changed the best practices for SoC design. At Arteris, we make on-chip interconnect fabric IP that is used by companies creating leading edge SoCs, like Samsung, Freescale and HiSilicon. We have an inside view of the problems SoC designers face, and the corporate practices they use to tackle them.

Rather than speak about the software tools semi companies use to solve these problems (IP-XACT, Perforce, SVN, UVM, requirements traceability software, etc.) I thought it would be better to focus on four areas where the Arteris team has seen the best companies focus, and what these companies have learned. The lessons are indicative of the fact that the skillset required to make SoCs that sell is no longer “RTL coding”, but has become timely “SoC assembly.”

The four lesson learned are:

There are many software tools and methodologies to help with these, especially items #2 through #4. But the overriding point of my presentation is that creating SoCs “the right way” requires PEOPLE to change the way they do things.

#1. Internally-develop only your most important IP
The major problems here are that design teams rarely benchmark their IP versus commercial solutions or perform cost-benefit analyses of make vs. buy. Most importantly, managers fail to account for opportunity cost: The value of what a design team could be doing instead of the working on their current project.

Our industry used to see this a lot with CPU cores; most every company had their own CPU until ARM, MIPS and other IP companies proved that theirs brought more value than internally developed solutions. We are seeing this now with memory controller IP, where SoC design teams are transitioning from internally developed IP to solutions from Cadence, Synopsys, Uniquify and others. And we’ve seen a huge change in the last four years where most SoC makers have abandoned internally on-chip fabric development in favor of commercial fabric IP like Arteris FlexNoC.

#2. Create a corporate “IP library”
It’s amazing how many companies don’t know what IP they have, whether internally developed or commercial. Not knowing what you have makes it nearly impossible to implement company-wide methodologies or to use a SoC platform and derivatives development approach.

The best companies collect and document all their IP (including associated software!) and make the library searchable and accessible to all design teams in the company. That way, if one team wants to use an IP already being used by another team, they can ask questions of that team and then contact purchasing if they would like to evaluate or use the IP. This is especially important for companies that grow by acquisitions!

#3. Develop corporate design and verification methodologies
This has to do with accelerating the company’s “learning curve.” Doing more designs by more people using similar processes allows more learning to optimize and adapt methodologies. This also encourages optimal IP usage and more IP reuse.

#4. Use a platform and derivatives approach

This has become more common in the last 4 years, aided by the use of highly configurable SoC interconnect fabrics. Creating derivative chips based on common platform give companies the flexibility to target more markets at a lower cost, and to more quickly respond to market changes and competitor actions.

New competitors?

What stops people from doing best practices that at first look seems obvious?
The more experienced a team is, the harder it usually is for them to change or adopt new methods. This is because it is simpler in the short term to patch what isn’t working any longer, rather than solve the issue for the long term. It’s easier in the long term to continue doing things, “the way we do things around here.”

The problem is that there are new competitors to the fabless companies. And they have less legacy experience and are eager to adopt best practices and become world class right away. I’m not talking about the new companies in mainland China creating world-class SoCs; rather I’m talking about the fabless semi vendors’ best customers!

I spent some time explaining a simplified view of the semiconductor value chain (slide 11), highlighting companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple and eBay that have hired their own chip design teams to either design custom chips, or to provide very specific requirements and even IP to incumbent fabless companies. A look at slide 12 shows how much more cash these companies have than their fabless semi suppliers. And a quick search of LinkedIn will show how extensively they have hired chip design talent from our industry.

My bottom line was that fabless companies need to implement these best practices if they want to remain the most efficient designers and producers of advanced SoCs. If incumbents stagnate and cannot adapt fast enough to meet their best customers’ needs, then those customers have the option to create chips themselves.
Please let me know what you think.

P.S. Many thanks to the organizers of this IEEE workshop:

  • Aparna Dey (General Chair and Technical Marketing Director for Standards at Cadence),
  • Naresh Sehgal (Session Chair for Pre-Silicon SW Development Platforms and SW Architecture Manager at Intel),
  • Gary Smith (Session Chair for Top Semiconductor Design Flow Challenges Panel and founder of Gary Smith EDA),
  • Herb Reiter (Session Chair for FINFET, 3D-IC, FD SOI and head of eda2asic consulting),
  • Daniel Nenni (Session Chair for 2 tracks! IP Verification & Qualification and Integration, Designing, Standard. And Chief SemiWiki dude.)
  • John Swan (Past general chair and Mother Hen making sure everything was running well. He runs Swan on Chips.)

lang: en_US


An AMS and RF IC Design Flow

An AMS and RF IC Design Flow
by Daniel Payne on 04-30-2014 at 1:24 am

The big three in EDA are well-know for offering AMS and RF IC design flows, but today you also have alternative EDA vendors available that have capable tools, yet are lessor known. This blog will present an overview of the AMS and RF IC design flowoffered by Silvaco, an EDA company with a strong history in TCAD tools like Utmost IV for device characterization and SPICE modeling.

AMS design can begin either from a bottom-up approach using transistor level schematics, or from the top-down with a modeling language like Verilog-A. There’s even an approach where you use both bottom-up and top-down, then meet in the middle. For the bottom-up approach you want a schematic capture tool to enter your design topology, launch SPICE circuit simulations, then view the results with a waveform tool. The Silvaco schematic capture tool is called Gateway and it’s bundled along with a waveform viewer.

The GUI of Gateway has a standard Microsoft look, so it’s easy to learn and use. You can create multiple views, multiple sheets and of course, hierarchical designs. They even have something like the free Adobe reader for their schematics called GatewayViews – now when was the last time an EDA vendor offered you something of value for free? From the schematic GUI you can launch their SPICE circuit simulator called SmartSpice. If you prefer HSPICE for circuit simulation, that netlist format is also supported. Any legacy schematics that you need for design re-use can be imported with EDIF 2 0 0.

The SmartSpice circuit simulator has a capacity up to 8M elements and the accuracy is correlated against silicon. You can read in netlists from HSPICE or Spectre simulators and even re-use the models, analysis features and compare results to get convinced that SmartSpice is trustworthy. Analog behavioral modeling is supported with the Verilog-A language, and for reliability analysis you can simulate Single Event Effects (SEE).

On the RF simulation side their product is called SmartSpice RF and it has both frequency and time-domain circuit simulation. With this tool you can simulate GHz range RF ICs with: harmonic distortion, intermodulation products, gains, noise and even oscillator phase noise in non-linear circuits from a SPICE netlist. The design flow for RF design is similar to analog IC design with Silvaco tools:

For mixed-signal simulation there is a single-kernel AMS circuit simulator called Harmony that uses SmartSpice for analog and Silos for digital blocks. Harmony does support the Accellera 2.2 standard for Verilog-AMS and Verilog-A, plus the IEEE 1364-2001 standard for the Verilog PLI. There’s a single parser that reads in both Verilog and SPICE syntaxes, and a single waveform viewer for analog and digital signals.

Analog designers often want to analyze a netlist to see how it behaves as model parameters are affected by process variations. The statistical parameter and yield analysis tool is called Spayn, and it can auto-generate worst-case and corner SPICE models. Engineers involved with characterization, process control and analysis would use the Spayn tool.

Summary

Well, there you have it, the 30,000 foot view on what Silvaco has to offer AMS and RF IC designers in terms of a complete EDA tool flow. You won’t find Silvaco at DAC in June, however you will see them at the CSW2014(Compound Semiconductor Week) in France on May 11-15, and at the Workshop on Compact Modeling in Washington, D.C. from June 15-19.

lang: en_US


Designing Change into Semiconductor Techonomics

Designing Change into Semiconductor Techonomics
by Daniel Payne on 04-29-2014 at 5:23 pm

Every industry has famous thought leaders that can summarize where we’ve been and then paint a picture of where we’re headed towards in the future. Often they make statements that become industry expressions, like “Moore’s Law” or the “Internet of Things”. I think that if Synopsys Chairman Aart de Geus had his way, then history would remember him for the phrase, “Techonomics”. At the annual SNUG meeting last month Mr. de Geus spoke about, “Design Change Into Semiconductor Techonomics”, and I watched the 65 minute video recording to better understand his industry vision.

Innovation is not dead, technology and economics (techonomics) have Moore’s law growing for another 10 years. From the business side you can look at our technology industries by market size:

  • Applications – $Zillions (Mobile $79B, PC/Server $72B, Auto $20B)
  • Electronics $1.4T
  • Semiconductor $300B
  • EDA + IP $7B
  • Fabrication $40B.

How is the semiconductor industry doing? Still growing, about 4.7% CAGR now, however there have been years of wild swings caused by the global economy and supply/demand discontinuities.

Business demands for growth then create pressure to design electronic products that are sooner, better and cheaper while being different from competitors. The Smart Phone market has been driven largely by sooner and better suppliers, while for emerging geographies the emphasis instead is on cheaper.

Looking at the history of transistor nodes used by Synopsys customers there is a rhythm to how fast they are adopted and ramped up. The following chart shows the tape out ramp history for 90nm node in purple, 65nm node in green, 45/40nm node in blue, and the 32/28nm node in red.

The node plans down to 7nm are well understood per conversations with Dr. Bohr at Intel. FinFET technology has started at the 22/20nm nodes and lower.

Synopsys has been offering design software, semiconductor IP and verification tools, which span up to prototyping and down to manufacturing. Improvements to design software include IC Compiler II (blogged by Paul McLellan, and myself) with a 10X improvement goal in speed, capacity and QOR. About ST using IC Compiler II, Aart said, “At 28nm an FD-SOI chip, very interesting technology, holding high promise for low power at a reasonable cost.”

An interesting plot was the popularity of process nodes on a range of designs done by Synopsys customers because the majority of designers are at 180nm, not the bleeding edge:

You can even take a design implemented with a mature 130nm node and route it with fewer layers and get a smaller area using IC Compiler II. Re-working the Synopsys tools even sped up the simulation times between VCS (digital) and SPICE (analog) by 6X. On the functional verification side of EDA, Aart talked about how Verification Compiler is comprised of their tools for debug, static and formal, simulation, verification IP, plus coverage and planning (blogged by Paul McLellan). As Synopsys has acquired point-tool companies, then it takes time to make the integrations native which then provides speed ups and capacity improvements.

IoT has now been branded as smart everything by Aart. The growth rate of sensors is rapid at a 30% CAGR, like in automotive applications.

To serve this IoT market, Synopsys has created a sensor IP subsystem to include both software and IP to work with the most popular host interfaces, sensors and actuators. IP must work in the most popular process nodes and support standards like USB 3.1, DDR4 and 12G enterprise PHY. IP re-use enables the faster time to market requirements of IoT designs.

Prototyping a new system with models for both hardware and software is a continuing challenge, and Synopsys engineers just wrote a free book called Better Software, Faster!, about best practices in virtual prototyping.

Some 50% of engineers at semiconductor companies are now software engineers, not hardware engineers – so Synopsys is looking to enter that market by the acquisition of Coverity to enable: code analysis, test analysis, metrics and measurement, workflow and collaboration. It’s a bold move, way outside the comfort zone in traditional EDA companies.

Summary

The success of semiconductor, EDA, IP, embedded and software industries are highly interdependent, just like the gears in a machine. Collaboration is essential for continued success.

lang: en_US


More knowledge, less time in FPGA-based prototyping

More knowledge, less time in FPGA-based prototyping
by Don Dingee on 04-29-2014 at 4:00 pm

I recently published a post on LinkedIn titled “Sometimes, you gotta throw it all out” in reference to the innovation process and getting beyond good to better. A prime example has crossed my desk: the new ProtoCompiler software for Synopsys HAPS FPGA-based prototyping systems.

Last week, I spoke with Troy Scott, product marketing manager for FPGA-based prototyping software at Synopsys, and I was a bit surprised to hear him use the words “completely rewritten” in describing ProtoCompiler. After all, Synopsys is known for FPGA synthesis and partitioning tools, and it would seem their current stuff would be pretty solid – why would they start over?

The answer lies in defining the problem correctly. Getting closure on a dedicated FPGA-based prototyping system, such as the HAPS-DX we learned about previously, isn’t the same as getting closure on a generic FPGA with generic tools. The nuances of clock distribution, handshaking, and pin multiplexing – all designed to enhance the partitioning and debug visibility of large ASIC designs represented in FPGA form – mean optimization can only be achieved through intimacy.

Synopsys was looking for results in minutes, not hours, even on massive designs. Part of the answer is better multicore processing on a Linux host, but the real effort is a new partitioning engine coupled with improved HDL compilation, tackling the problem of projecting a design into a HAPS. A more optimized synthesis strategy must account for the topology of the hardware prototyping system – this is what sets ProtoCompiler running on HAPS apart from using third-party FPGA development boards, which are typically more focused on providing a habitat for the FPGA hardware designer.

ProtoCompiler uses a strategy Scott calls a “deferred I/O plan”, using knowledge about the HAPS design and the Xilinx FPGA. There is no dedicated interconnect on HAPS; all I/O is accessible in a bank of connectors, with 50 signals on each connector that can be flexibly routed and cabled. Also, looking at the logic implementation also is important – is it a “rat’s nest” like a GPU connected to everything, or is it more of a regular pattern like a subsystem of AMBA AHB-connected peripherals?

With two sets of defined constraints, accounting for both the HAPS platform and the ASIC design, the synthesis tool can then take over and come to closure with decent timing much more quickly. Typically, the bottleneck in closure is pin-sharing and the necessary time multiplexing of interconnects. “Usually, what you’re doing is chasing the pins with the highest mux ratios, and trying to squash those down in iterations,” Scott said.

Scott gives another concrete example of intimate knowledge a synthesis tool should leverage: on HAPS, there is a high-speed TDM using the SERDES channels on the Xilinx Virtex-7 XC7V2000T. The flight times have been fully characterized, taking into account trace lengths, cable delays, and more, and they know how the clocking and gearing logic is set up.

Trying to pull the same thing off using FPGA development boards and generic synthesis tools on large, fast designs leaves designers to reconcile all these details, often with precious little structural knowledge beyond the internals of the FPGA itself. This is the core of the minutes-versus-hours tradeoff ProtoCompiler and HAPS target, and why Synopsys rewrote their tools.

A complete introduction to ProtoCompiler, including a datasheet and a video with Scott talking about the platform, is on the Synopsys web site. The path of iterative innovation Synopsys is on with the HAPS platform has been fascinating to watch. They aren’t locked in and satisfied with things; instead, they are taking rapid cycles of learning and real-world experience into each successive enhancement of FPGA-based prototyping.

lang: en_US