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

Special Interest Group for HSPICE at DesignCon in Two Weeks

Special Interest Group for HSPICE at DesignCon in Two Weeks
by Daniel Payne on 01-13-2014 at 8:00 pm

DesignCon brings together engineers from around the world that are interested in IC design, package design and board design, plus the signal integrity issues of creating high-speed systems. In just two weeks there’s a Special Interest Group(SIG) just for users of HSPICE in their tool flow, and it meets for three hours during dinner in the evening from 6PM to 9PM on Tuesday, January 28th. I’ve blogged about this event in past years:

The SPICE world moves quickly, so Synopsys is busy adding new features and improvements each year, plus at this SIG you get to hear from real users of HSPICE, not the marketing droids. There are 13 EDA partners that create tools that use HSPICE for analysis, and you can stop by and chat with their AEs to find out how the integrations work.

[TABLE] cellpadding=”6″ cellspacing=”6″ style=”width: 600px”
|-
| align=”center” valign=”middle” |
Ansys

| align=”center” valign=”middle” |
Concept Engineering

| align=”center” valign=”middle” |
CST—Computer Simulation Technology

|-
| align=”center” valign=”middle” |
Helic S.A.

| align=”center” valign=”middle” |
Infiniscale

| align=”center” valign=”middle” |
IO Methodology, Inc.

|-
| align=”center” valign=”middle” |
Lorentz Solution

| align=”center” valign=”middle” |
MunEDA GmbH

| align=”center” valign=”middle” |
Orora Design Technologies, Inc.

|-
| align=”center” valign=”middle” |
Signal Integrity Software, Inc.
(SiSoft)

| align=”center” valign=”middle” |
Solido Design Automation Inc.

| align=”center” valign=”middle” |
Sonnet

|-
| align=”center” valign=”middle” |
Zuken

| rowspan=”2″ |
|-

Topics

You can expect to see at least four presentations covering topics like:

  • Signal integrity analysis
  • Power integrity analysis
  • Designing multi-gigabit serial links
  • New HSPICE features and improvements

You can even approach an HSPICE developer or manager and nag them about adding your favorite new feature. There’s nothing like a direct request to get engineering thinking about what’s important to add in the next release.

Registration

You need to register for this event online here. If you cannot make it to DesignCon this year, then stay tuned because I’ll have a link to a video recording of the HPSICE SIG and blog about it. Stay until the very end of the presentations and get a chance to win a prize, typically something cool like a tablet.

lang: en_US


MakerSpace at CES, Atmel inside

MakerSpace at CES, Atmel inside
by Paul McLellan on 01-13-2014 at 4:12 pm

The DIY Maker Movement has been using Atmel-powered 3D printers like MakerBot and RepRap for some time now. However, 3D printing has clearly entered a new and important stage in a number of spaces including the medical sphere, architectural arena and science lab. 3D printing is now at that crossover point where it is going from being something primarily driven by hobbyists to true commercial manufacturing. The 3D printing industry is on track to be worth a stunning $3B by 2016. It reminds me of the state of the PC industry in the mid 1970s when it was switching from hobbyists (Apple I) to real computers doing real work (Apple II, driven largely by VisiCalc, the first spreadsheet). Just recently I read about a 3D printer being used to make prosthetic hands and other such parts, real work for sure.

At CES this year, Atmel had various technology zones. The MakerSpace in particular attracted a lot of attention with Arduino boards, 3D printers and other Atmel-powered devices. This just goes to illustrate how mainstream the Maker Movement has become. Atmel has typically focused on the microcontrollers and components inside many consumer devices, a role that puts them squarely in CES territory. They also provide the processor inside most Arduino boards, connecting them closely with the world of making. Atmel is staying firmly connected to Makers.

As Salvador Rodriguez of the LA times said:“While the Internet gave users the ability to have instant access to information, 3D printers will give users the ability to instantly create objects. In the future, users may be able to print shoes that are tailored to the exact size of their feet, among many possibilities. They may also be able to buy products directly from online retailers and print them out immediately, rather than wait for the item to ship.”


The capability to manufacture complex parts in comparatively low volumes means that entrepreneurs can do more than build software/web companies but can make physical things. The cost of creating prototypes using 3D printing technology lowers the barrier a lot, and even low volume manufacturing is scalable. The cost of getting a product into high volume manufacturing can be postponed until it is a sure-fire success. It is not even necessary to own all the technology in-house. Boutique manufacturing operations have come into existence across the U.S. and Asia that offer low-cost options for building small batches of new products.

This is echoed by MakerBot CEO Bre Pettis:“If you had an idea and wanted to get it out into the world, you used have to be a tycoon in an industry. Now you just need an idea and the willingness to fail until it works.”

See Atmel’s video diary at CES here.

More articles by Paul McLellan…

lang: en_US


GSA Silicon Summit

GSA Silicon Summit
by Paul McLellan on 01-13-2014 at 2:50 pm

Every year the GSA holds the GSA Silicon Summit. This year it is on April 10th at the Computer History Museum. It runs from 9am until 2.15pm. This year the focus is mostly on technologies other than simply scaling semiconductor technology. The meeting is divided into 3 sessions, each of which starts with a presentation and then is followed by a panel session. The participants are still being finalized but the topics can be announced.

The first session is on Implications of Nanoscale Manufacturing. Joe Sawicki of Mentor will moderate. The session will open with an overview detailing the challenges of continued gate scaling, as well as the industry’s exploration of alternative materials and processes in the fabrication of nanoscale structures and the resulting applications that may be enabled. A panel discussion will follow to address some of the challenges involved in implementing alternative CMOS solutions as well as recent advancements made in nanoscale engineering.

The second session is on Innovation in a Heterogeneous Integration Era. The session will open with an overview on how manufacturing and packaging innovation driven by heterogeneous integration is fueling new opportunities and helping manufacturers propel such visions as the IoT and Sensory Swarms. A panel discussion will follow and explore the current and future advances of integrating digital, RF, analog/mixed-signal, memory and sensors in close proximity to achieve increased performance from a scaling, material and process perspective.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is one of those terms that means different things to different people, but given that the devices are likely to be extremely low power, low cost and contain a selection of sensors, it is clear that this is very different from the smartphone business. The integration is likely to be using innovative packaging rather than simply doing everything at 16nm.

The third session is on Enabling a 2.5D Ecosystem. Holding great promise for enabling heterogeneous integration and reducing design complexity, this session will provide an overview on where the industry stands in terms of developing and commercializing 2.5D technology and what remains to be done. A panel discussion will follow and address the use case for utilizing 2.5D technology, as well as the business needs within the supply chain in order to ignite 2.5D adoption and market growth, changing it if possible, from a nascent alternative to a mature option.

I think 2014 will turn out to be the year that 3D chips become real, at least in two forms: stacked memory and 2.5D interposer-based designs. At the end of last year Micron announced that the Hybrid Memory Cube will ship in production volumes this year, and Xilinx announced a family of FPGAs that are manufactured using interposer technology. Talking to EDA companies, there are obviously several other pilot programs at their customers. The general feeling at the 3D conference in Burlingame in December was that once these sorts of products ship in volume so that several million units have been manufactured, then the costs will come down a lot and this form of integration will become very attractive.

Register to attend here.


More articles by Paul McLellan…


How to Develop Accurate Yet High Performance Models

How to Develop Accurate Yet High Performance Models
by Pawan Fangaria on 01-13-2014 at 12:00 pm

In today’s environment of semiconductor design, SoCs are crammed with various IPs with multiple functionalities and processors integrated together. In such an event it has become necessary to model the system and verify on Virtual Platform before getting into actual design and fabrication. And that requires modelling of each block at the required level of abstraction. Even to re-use an IP or existing design block needs its modelling in the context of the new design in which it is to be used.

Ideally, it may be desired that a model should be fast enough (as software run) at the Programmers View (PV) level modelled at LT (Loosely Timed) or UT (Untimed) level of abstraction. However, as we move towards actual hardware of the system, timing accuracy sets in, ultimately leading to CA (Cycle Accurate)level of abstraction which decreases the performance by orders of magnitude compared to that of programmers view. In practical situations we need both types of models depending on the accuracy level required for particular blocks. AT (Approximately Timed) models are less prevalent because they are neither 100% accurate nor as fast as LT models and require considerable cost of development and maintenance. In comparison, LT models can be easily developed by mapping functionality into software and CA models can be easily translated from RTL implementation.

Now the real question is how to get the best out of both ends of spectrum, LT and CA? CA models will slow down LT models, hence limiting the overall speed of the Virtual Prototype. But there is a way out; I am delighted to see this novel approach developed by Carbonand ARM where they exploit the accuracy of CA and speed of PV models and enable them to complement each other as required by the system in Virtual Prototype.


[PV and CA Integrated Platform]

In the above arrangement, it’s very convenient for a designer to execute the system in LT mode up to a point (such as booting of an OS) and then change to CA mode for tasks which require more accuracy. This requires each model to have some check point (CP) facility which can be utilized to do the swap between LT and CA mode of execution. ARM Fast Model system provides Cycle Accurate Debug Interface (CADI) and ARM ESL APIs which can be used to create such CPs. Any type of model can use ARM ESL APIs to make this kind of swapping possible at the CP. Since there are differences in execution of LT and CA models, testing of the swap functionality can only be done by creating multiple random CPs and continuing the program execution from these CPs until the program completion and looking at the end result.


[Partitioning the platform between LT and CA for speed and accuracy]

Above is an example of the PV and CA integrated platform in which ARM Mali[SUP]TM[/SUP] GPUwas Carbonized (by using Carbon Model Studio) and linked together an ARM Fast Model representation of the system. Variations of this exact setup have been deployed at multiple semiconductor design houses. The processor/memory subsystem is sufficient to boot the Linux OS and get to a prompt within 15-20 seconds irrespective of GPU being present or not. The speed goes down when CA model becomes active in processing graphics frames, each frame taking approximately 90 seconds. On the other hand, the hardware prototype, although was much quicker in frame processing, took about 15 minutes to boot Linux, i.e. by the time Linux was booted, the Virtual Prototype had already processed about 10 frames.


[Applying check points (CPs) in swap enabled platform]

A swap-enabled LT system runs like any other Virtual Prototype, however it can be changed to 100% CA at any point of interest. Typically software breakpoints are chosen, such as start of various driver codes inside the OS kernel as shown in the above picture. A single Fast Model run can create multiple CPs, which can then be simulated and debugged (with detailed hardware and software interactions in 100% accurate environment) independently in parallel by different personnel. The results from these runs can be used to analyse performance, power etc.

Swap capability from ARM Fast Models to Carbonized ARM models is in existence and active use at numerous design companies. The functionality is readily available for ARM Cortex-A15, Cortex-A9 and Cortex-A7 processors along with their peripheral models.

It’s a great innovative approach to optimize virtual prototyping with a single virtual prototype debugging software at fast speed and at the same time having capability to execute at 100% accuracy, as required for architectural exploration, firmware development and system debug. Bill Neifert, CTO, Founder at Carbon Design Systems and Rob Kaye, Technical Specialist at ARM has described this process in great detail along with some more future work in their whitepaper posted at Carbon website. It’s a great read for system designers and IP developers.

More Articles by Pawan Fangaria…..

lang: en_US


Migrating SOCs from 8051 to 32-bits

Migrating SOCs from 8051 to 32-bits
by Daniel Nenni on 01-12-2014 at 10:00 pm

The 8051 processor has been widely used in many embedded applications over the past 30 years. While the 8051 core is small and simple-to-use, the newest generation of consumer electronics being developed today often require more than the 8051 MCU can reasonably deliver. New SOC applications such as flash drives, power management chips, sensors controllers, IoT devices, and many others can benefit significantly from a more capable processor. The newest embedded applications are demanding more performance, significantly less power consumption, more programmability, and more numeric precision than the legacy 8051 is able to provide.

Webinar:
Migrating-SOCs-from-8051-to-32-bits
Wed, Jan 22, 2014 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM PST

Estimated Length:
40 Minutes + 10 Minutes Q&A

Who Should Attend:
SoC and ASIC architects, designers, and managers who are developing embedded MCU-based systems and are interested in improving performance, reducing power consumption, and reducing costs.

Attendees Will Learn:

  • The tradeoffs of different embedded MCU IP cores
  • The performance and power bottlenecks for MCU-based systems
  • Andes FlashFetch and secure MCU design technologies
  • The complete embedded MCU design solution from Andes.

Register Now

[TABLE] style=”margin-bottom: 10px; background-repeat: repeat repeat”
|-
| align=”left” valign=”top” style=”text-align: center; padding: 1px; background-color: #c4c4c4″ | [TABLE] style=”width: 100%”
|-
| align=”left” valign=”top” style=”background-color: #ddebd6; padding: 7px; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: #5a5a5a” | Presenter: Dr. Emerson Hsiao
Director, Field Application Engineering
Dr. Hsiao has an extensive background in the ASIC and IP industry. Prior to Andes, he worked at Kilopass Technology as the VP of Marketing. Dr. Hsiao previously held the General Manager position for Faraday Technology USA, where he spent several years in field application in various locations including Taiwan, Japan and USA. Dr. Hsiao worked at UC Santa Barbara as a visiting scholar prior to Faraday. He received his Ph.D in Electrical Engineering from National Taiwan University.
|-

|-

[TABLE] style=”margin-bottom: 10px; background-repeat: repeat repeat”
|-
| align=”left” valign=”top” style=”text-align: center; padding: 1px; background-color: #c4c4c4″ | [TABLE] style=”width: 100%”
|-
| align=”left” valign=”top” style=”background-color: #ddebd6; padding: 7px; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: #5a5a5a” | Moderator:Dan Ganousis
North America Business Development
Dan is a veteran of the EDA and semiconductor IP industries having served as an executive at Mentor Graphics, VeriBest, Viewlogic, Innoveda, Arithmatica, Forte Design, Cyclos Semiconductor, and most recently Oasys Design. Dan spent the first 15 years of his career designing microprocessors and ASICs at Zilog, NCR, DEC, and Solbourne Computer. Dan currently is a consultant for Andes Technology USA assisting in business development in North America. Dan received his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY.
|-

|-

Register Now

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

lang: en_US

Andes Technology, one of EE Times’ Silicon 60: Hot Startups to Watch, has introduced a new embedded MCU product line to tackle these new design requirements. In this webinar, we will discuss many of the bottlenecks that designers will face for increasing performance and reducing power consumption in a typical 8051-based system – and about 32-bit alternatives. A novel low-power solution will be introduced using AndesFlashFetch™ technology. A secure MCU system for embedded code protection will also be described. Attendees will learn how to use the complete Andes embedded MCU ecosystem including a graphical IDE, rich operating system and application software stack, easy-to-use debugging tools, and convenient in-circuit evaluation platforms.


Sidense Beats Kilopass in Court Again!

Sidense Beats Kilopass in Court Again!
by Daniel Nenni on 01-12-2014 at 12:00 am

The technology headlines in 2013 were often stolen by frivolous legal actions that made little or no sense to me at all. Patent Trolling is at an all-time high inside the fabless semiconductor ecosystem and as a result litigation reform is coming to Silicon Valley, believe it.

Currently working its way through the legislative process is the Innovation Act (H.R. 3309), the major provisions of this bill are:

  • Require specificity in patent lawsuits
  • Make patent ownership more transparent
  • Make losing plaintiffs pay legal fees
  • Delay discovery to control costs
  • Protect end users of the products in question

Not so coincidentally the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington ordered a judge to analyze whether Kilopass Technology Inc. should pay legal fees incurred by Sidense Corp.

“Too many patent owners are bringing claims that are meritless and then settling for a nuisance value with the expectation their claims would never be tested,” said Edward Reines, a lawyer with Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP in Redwood Shores, California, who also teaches at Stanford Law School. “The intrepid defendant who fights and wins ends up not being compensated for their fees.”

As the story goes, in May of 2010 Kilopass took legal action against Sidense Corp for infringement of Kilopass’ 1T antifuse technology. Kilopass and Sidense design programmable non-volatile memory (NVM). The patent in question describes two “doped semiconductor regions” that define a channel. The comparable Sidense NVM employs a single doped semiconductor with a shallow trench isolation insulator. In April 2013 the case was resolved by judgment of non-infringement on Kilopass’ patent claims and its dismissal, with prejudice, of all remaining claims against Sidense.

Unfortunately, during the case it was discovered that Kilopass was advised against legal action stating that Sidense had redesigned the memory cells in question but they filed anyway. Three years and millions of dollars in legal fees later (money that could have been used for research and development) the lawyers will continue to argue and generate even more billable hours determining if Kilopass should pay legal costs and how much that will be.

It said the court must consider “whether Kilopass acted in bad faith in light of the totality of the circumstances” even if there’s no specific evidence of wrongdoing, Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley wrote.

Federal appeals court: ‘Patent trolls’ should foot legal …
Patent Suit Losers Should Pay Legal Costs More Often, Court Says

The press had a field day with this which suggests to me that change is coming, absolutely. The articles I made it through are listed above but there are dozens more if you Google around a bit. Sidense and Kilopass both have records of this legal adventure on their websites as well. The Sidense site is more up to date since they won of course:

http://www.kilopass.com/news-events/litigation-update/
https://www.sidense.com/news-a-events/press-releases/2014.html

More Articles by Daniel Nenni…..

lang: en_US


Social Media at Aldec

Social Media at Aldec
by Daniel Payne on 01-09-2014 at 5:38 pm

I’ve been blogging about EDA and Semiconductor companies using social media to create new ways to talk and listen to engineers, so today I looked at Aldec and how they are using social media. Aldec offers EDA products for: FPGA Simulation, functional verification, emulation, and MIL/Aero verification. Their Home page has six icons with links for social media down in the footer section.


Continue reading “Social Media at Aldec”


UTBB FDSOI Devices Featuring 20nm Gate Length

UTBB FDSOI Devices Featuring 20nm Gate Length
by Eric Esteve on 01-09-2014 at 10:33 am

Did you go to IEDM 2013 in Washington DC ? You may have attended to the “Advanced CMOS Technology Platform” chaired by TSMC, and listen to the FD-SOI related presentation “High Performance UTBB FDSOI Devices Featuring 20nm Gate Length for 14nm Node and Beyond”. According with the abstract, this paper is the first time report of “high performance Ultra-thin Body and Box (UTBB) FDSOI devices with a gate length (LG) of 20nm and BOX thickness (TBOX) of 25nm, featuring dual channel FETs (Si channel NFET and compressively strained SiGe channel PFET).” If you didn’t go to Washington DC, or not familiar with FD-SOI, having a look at FD-SOI device architecture could help:

(The readers familiar with CMOS device architecture may prefer to skip this paragraph)

The 20nm Gate Length (L[SUB]G[/SUB]) is the drawn gate feature (L[SUB]EFF[/SUB] being the effective Source to Drain distance, between the two arrows on the picture), and the BOX Thickness (TBOX) is the height of the green Buried Oxide zone, giving to FD-SOI the SOI part of the name: Silicon On Insulator, by opposition to Bulk technology, where there is no green zone, but the Silicon substrate. Another precision can be useful: although the paper mentions 20nm Gate Length, it applies to 14nm Node… That’s just the marketing magic! When you draw a 20nm Gate, the effective distance between drain to Source tend to be smaller, due to chemical effect during Drain and Source doping diffusion, and the Semiconductor industry tend to use this effective channel length as the Node denomination. In this case, everybody knows that smaller is better! These few precisions are for those who are not familiar with transistor architecture (or who may have forgotten that they learn at the University…like me).

The paper (from STMicroelectronics, CEA-LETI, IBM, Renesas, SOITEC and GLOBALFOUNDRIES) can be read here.

Now, we have some basic technology knowledge and we can go further in the paper, and learn more about UTBB FDSOI devices featuring 20nm gate length for 14nm Node:

  • Using FD-SOI allows reaching competitive effective current (Ieff) in comparison with bulk technology, see Fig 3 and 4 above

  • Excellent electrostatics is obtained (Fig 5 to 7 above), demonstrating the scalability of these devices to14nm and beyond. To really understand the above curve, we need to know what DIBL is. From Wikipedia, Drain-induced barrier lowering or DIBL is a short-channel effect in MOSFETs referring originally to a reduction of threshold voltage of the transistor at higher drain voltages. In a classic planar field-effect transistor with a long channel, the bottleneck in channel formation occurs far enough from the drain contact that it is electrostatically shielded from the drain by the combination of the substrate and gate, and so classically the threshold voltage was independent of drain voltage. In short-channel devices this is no longer true: The drain is close enough to gate the channel, and so a high drain voltage can open the bottleneck and turn on the transistor prematurely.

  • Very low AVt (1.3mV•μm) of channel SiGe (cSiGe) PFET devices is reported for the first time. This low Avt is evidence of well-controlled SiGe epitaxy and condensation processes used to form the undoped channel. In other words, that UTBB FDSOI technology manufacturing process can be well managed, from and industry perspective.

  • Bias Temperature Instability (BTI) is improved >20% vs a comparable bulk device and evidence of continued scalability beyond 14nm is provided. This 20% improvement is illustrated in Fig. 14, and demonstrates that UTBB devices show superior reliability to bulk devices. This improvement is attributed to the un-doped channel, and the lower electric fields for the UTBB devices.

The paper ends with scaling considerations: scaling to 10nm node and below will likely require further LG reduction, and to maintain electrostatic performance, a thinner channel thickness (TSi) will also be needed. However, at very thin TSi (< 3nm), quantum confinement starts to dominate Vt. Fortunately, UTBB devices have another scaling enabler: TBOX. Fig. 18 shows DIBL & SS as a function of TBOX. A DIBL reduction of 20mV is seen when scaling TBOX from 25nm to 10nm:


In summary, FDSOI exhibits competitive effective current, excellent electrostatic behavior, very low Avt and Bias Temperature instability 20% better than bulk. Moreover, UTBB FDSOI is planar and capable of 14nm and beyond, at probably a lower cost than FinFET on bulk technology, the latest being more complicated (more expansive?) to process. But such a smart technology will be effectively more cost effective for chip maker if market adoption is wide enough to first benefit from cost reduction linked with volume production, and also large enough IP ecosystem…

From Eric Esteve from IPNEST

More Articles by Eric Esteve …..

lang: en_US