1 Fiji Dollar = 187.2985 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 New Zealand Dollar = 259.0173 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 Croatian Kuna = 60.818 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 124.1501 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 Dominican Peso = 7.6669 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 123.0158 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 Brunei Dollar = 298.594 Kazakhstan Tenge

Differentiating good IP from mediocre or bad IP is getting more difficult, in part because it depends upon how and where it is used and in part, because even the best IP may work better in one system than another—even in chips developed by the same vendor.  

So, how do you measure IP quality and why it is so complicated?

The answer depends on who is asking. Most of the time, the definition of IP quality depends on your vantage point.  If you are an R&D manager, IP quality means something. If you are a global supply manager, IP quality means something else. If you are an SoC start-up, your measure of quality is quite different from that of an established fabless company. If you are designing IP in-house, then your considerations are very different than being a commercial IP vendor. If you are designing an automotive SoC, then we are in a totally different category. How about as an IP vendor? How do you articulate IP quality metrics to your customers?

This varies greatly by the type of IP, as well. When it comes to interface (hard) IP and controllers, if you are an R&D manager, your goal is to design IP that meets the IP specifications and PPA (power, performance, and area) targets. You need to validate your design via silicon test chips. This applies to all hard PHYs, which must be mapped to a particular foundry process. For controllers that are in RTL form—we called these soft IP—you have to synthesize them into a particular target library in a particular foundry process in order to realize them in a physical form suitable for SoC integration. Of course, your design will need to go through a series of design validation steps via simulation, design verification and passing the necessary DRC checks, etc. In addition, you want to see the test silicon in various process corners to ensure the IP is robust and will perform well under normal process variations in the production wafers.

For someone in IP procurement, the measure of quality will be based on the maturity of the IP. This involves the number of designs that have been taped out using this IP and the history of bug reports and subsequent fixes. You will be looking for quality of the documentation and the technical deliverables. You will also benchmark the supplier’s standard operating procedures for bug reporting and technical support, as well as meeting delivery performance in prior programs. This is in addition to the technical teams doing their technical diligence.

An in-house team that is likely to design IP for a particular SoC project will be using an established design flow and will have legacy knowledge of last generation’s IP. They may be required to design the IP with some reusability in mind for future programs. However, such reusability requirements will not need to be as stringent and as broad as those of commercial IP vendors because there are likely to be established metrics and procedures in place to follow as part of the design team’s standard operating procedures. Many times, new development based on a prior design that has been proven in use will be started, given this stable starting point. All of these criteria help the team achieve a quality outcome more easily.

Then, if designing for an automotive SoC, additional heavy lifting is required.  Aside from ensuring that the IP meets the specifications of the protocol standards and passes the compliance testing, you also must pay attention to meeting functional safety requirements. This means adherence to ISO 26262 requirements and subsequently achieving ASIL certification. Oftentimes, even for IP, you must perform some AEC-Q100-related tests that are relevant to IP, such as ESD, LU, and HTOL.

To read more, please visit: https://semiengineering.com/why-ip-quality-is-so-difficult-to-determine/

Modern systems-on-a-chip (SoCs) continue to increase in complexity, adding more components and calculation power to accommodate new performance-hungry applications such as machine learning and autonomous driving.  With increased number of SoC components, such as CPUs, GPUs, accelerators and I/O devices, comes increased demand to correctly model interoperability of various components. Traditional simulation of complex systems requires accurate models of all components comprising the system and normally results in very long simulation times. A better way is to create a set of typical traffic profiles which describe behavior of system’s masters and slaves. Such profiles should be abstract to be applied to various protocols and interfaces and be portable to be applied throughout different SoC design and verification cycles.

To address the challenges outlined above, Arm has recently announced availability of the AMBA® Adaptive Traffic Profiles (AMBA ATP) specification which lays foundation of a new synthetic traffic framework. The AMBA ATP specification includes detailed information of various transaction types and timing characteristics of those transactions. The traffic profiles defined in the specification are abstract in nature and thus could be used to generate stimuli for various standard AMBA protocols and in various environments such as RTL-based simulation, FPGA prototyping and final SoC verification. The traffic profiles outlined in the specification include a set of parameters to define timing relationships between transactions as well as timing relationships within individual transactions. Even though the traffic profile represents the behavior of a single agent it could be applied either in a concurrent manner (e.g. write and read traffic profiles running in parallel) or in a sequential manner (e.g. when one traffic completes before the next one start). Moreover, when simulating a reasonably complex system, it is possible to coordinate traffic profiles generated by multiple components. While providing abstract definition of traffic profiles, the AMBA ATP specification focuses on the use of traffic profiles with an AMBA AXI interface, outlining signaling, timing relationships between different transaction phases and between different transactions. The same application principles could be used to map the abstract traffic profiles to other AMBA protocols such as AMBA5 CHI protocol.  

To facilitate adoption of the AMBA Adaptive Traffic Profiles, Cadence has recently announced availability of SystemVerilog UVM ATP Sequence Layer which automatically implements mapping of an abstract ATP traffic to AMBA protocol specific traffic, generated by Cadence AMBA Verification IP. The ATP layer is implemented as a SystemVerilog UVM virtual sequence with the sequence item including all ATP transaction parameters as defined in the specification.

Using the provided sequence infrastructure, users can write tests to define and coordinate traffic profiles for various components in the system. The ATP Layer automatically converts the abstract traffic profile into AMBA protocol-specific traffic, e.g., AMBA5 CHI protocol traffic.

 A sample code below, shows an example of a read profile translated by Cadence ACE Verification IP in ACE protocol traffic.

   `uvm_do_with(ace_atp_vseq,                                            

                       {ace_atp_vseq.agentId == agent_id;                                // ATP agent id

                        ace_atp_vseq.atpDirection == ATP_READ;                    // direction of bursts issued by virtual sequence

                        ace_atp_vseq.startAddress == start_address;                // start of address range being accessed

                        ace_atp_vseq.endAddress == end_address;                  // end of address range being accessed

                        ace_atp_vseq.atpDomain == atp_domain;                      // domain to use for transactions

                        ace_atp_vseq.addressPattern == ATP_SEQUENTIAL;  // address pattern

                        ace_atp_vseq.transactionSize == 64;                             // number of bytes in each burst

                        ace_atp_vseq.dataSize == 4;                                          // number of bytes in each transfer

                        ace_atp_vseq.rate == 150.0/(50.0);                                // requestedBandwidth / clkFrequency

                        ace_atp_vseq.start == ATP_EMPTY;                              // start condition of the ATP FIFO

                        ace_atp_vseq.full == 128;                                               // full level of the ATP FIFO

                        ace_atp_vseq.numOfTransactions == 500;                    // number of bursts issued by this sequence

                        ace_atp_vseq.ARTV == 2;                                              // sub-transaction delay

                        ace_atp_vseq.RBR == 3;                                                // sub-transaction delay

                       });

In addition to the ATP Layer for Cadence Simulation-Based AMBA Verification IP, Cadence supports the ATP functionality in Acceleration-Based AMBA Verification IP. For detailed information about ATP support in Cadence Simulation-Based and Acceleration-Based Verification IP, visit ip.cadence.com.

This is the 21st installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

When all political parties agree on something, you know you might have a problem. Giriraj Singh, a minister in Narendra Modi’s new cabinet, tweeted this week that our population control law should become a “movement.” This is something that would find bipartisan support – we are taught from school onwards that India’s population is a big problem, and we need to control it.

This is wrong. Contrary to popular belief, our population is not a problem. It is our greatest strength.

The notion that we should worry about a growing population is an intuitive one. The world has limited resources. People keep increasing. Something’s gotta give.

Robert Malthus made just this point in his 1798 book, An Essay on the Principle of Population. He was worried that our population would grow exponentially while resources would grow arithmetically. As more people entered the workforce, wages would fall and goods would become scarce. Calamity was inevitable.

Malthus’s rationale was so influential that this mode of thinking was soon called ‘Malthusian.’ (It is a pejorative today.) A 20th-century follower of his, Harrison Brown, came up with one of my favourite images on this subject, arguing that a growing population would lead to the earth being “covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots.”

Another Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich, published a book called The Population Bomb in 1968, which began with the stirring lines, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Ehrlich was, as you’d guess, a big supporter of India’s coercive family planning programs. ““I don’t see,” he wrote, “how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980.”

None of these fears have come true. A 2007 study by Nicholas Eberstadt called ‘Too Many People?’ found no correlation between population density and poverty. The greater the density of people, the more you’d expect them to fight for resources – and yet, Monaco, which has 40 times the population density of Bangladesh, is doing well for itself. So is Bahrain, which has three times the population density of India.

Not only does population not cause poverty, it makes us more prosperous. The economist Julian Simon pointed out in a 1981 book that through history, whenever there has been a spurt in population, it has coincided with a spurt in productivity. Such as, for example, between Malthus’s time and now. There were around a billion people on earth in 1798, and there are around 7.7 billion today. As you read these words, consider that you are better off than the richest person on the planet then.

Why is this? The answer lies in the title of Simon’s book: The Ultimate Resource. When we speak of resources, we forget that human beings are the finest resource of all. There is no limit to our ingenuity. And we interact with each other in positive-sum ways – every voluntary interactions leaves both people better off, and the amount of value in the world goes up. This is why we want to be part of economic networks that are as large, and as dense, as possible. This is why most people migrate to cities rather than away from them – and why cities are so much richer than towns or villages.

If Malthusians were right, essential commodities like wheat, maize and rice would become relatively scarcer over time, and thus more expensive – but they have actually become much cheaper in real terms. This is thanks to the productivity and creativity of humans, who, in Eberstadt’s words, are “in practice always renewable and in theory entirely inexhaustible.”

The error made by Malthus, Brown and Ehrlich is the same error that our politicians make today, and not just in the context of population: zero-sum thinking. If our population grows and resources stays the same, of course there will be scarcity. But this is never the case. All we need to do to learn this lesson is look at our cities!

This mistaken thinking has had savage humanitarian consequences in India. Think of the unborn millions over the decades because of our brutal family planning policies. How many Tendulkars, Rahmans and Satyajit Rays have we lost? Think of the immoral coercion still carried out on poor people across the country. And finally, think of the condescension of our politicians, asserting that people are India’s problem – but always other people, never themselves.

This arrogance is India’s greatest problem, not our people.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

This is the 24th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Back in the last decade, I was a cricket journalist for a few years. Then, around 12 years ago, I quit. I was jaded as hell. Every game seemed like déjà vu, nothing new, just another round on the treadmill. Although I would remember her fondly, I thought me and cricket were done.

And then I fell in love again. Cricket has changed in the last few years in glorious ways. There have been new ways of thinking about the game. There have been new ways of playing the game. Every season, new kinds of drama form, new nuances spring up into sight. This is true even of what had once seemed the dullest form of the game, one-day cricket. We are entering into a brave new world, and the team leading us there is England. No matter what happens in the World Cup final today – a single game involves a huge amount of luck – this England side are extraordinary. They are the bridge between eras, leading us into a Golden Age of Cricket.

I know that sounds hyperbolic, so let me stun you further by saying that I give the IPL credit for this. And now, having woken up you up with such a jolt on this lovely Sunday morning, let me explain.

Twenty20 cricket changed the game in two fundamental ways. Both ended up changing one-day cricket. The first was strategy.

When the first T20 games took place, teams applied an ODI template to innings-building: pinch-hit, build, slog. But this was not an optimal approach. In ODIs, teams have 11 players over 50 overs. In T20s, they have 11 players over 20 overs. The equation between resources and constraints is different. This means that the cost of a wicket goes down, and the cost of a dot ball goes up. Critically, it means that the value of aggression rises. A team need not follow the ODI template. In some instances, attacking for all 20 overs – or as I call it, ‘frontloading’ – may be optimal.

West Indies won the T20 World Cup in 2016 by doing just this, and England played similarly. And some sides began to realise was that they had been underestimating the value of aggression in one-day cricket as well.

The second fundamental way in which T20 cricket changed cricket was in terms of skills. The IPL and other leagues brought big money into the game. This changed incentives for budding cricketers. Relatively few people break into Test or ODI cricket, and play for their countries. A much wider pool can aspire to play T20 cricket – which also provides much more money. So it makes sense to spend the hundreds of hours you are in the nets honing T20 skills rather than Test match skills. Go to any nets practice, and you will find many more kids practising innovative aggressive strokes than playing the forward defensive.

As a result, batsmen today have a wider array of attacking strokes than earlier generations. Because every run counts more in T20 cricket, the standard of fielding has also shot up. And bowlers have also reacted to this by expanding their arsenal of tricks. Everyone has had to lift their game.

In one-day cricket, thus, two things have happened. One, there is better strategic understanding about the value of aggression. Two, batsmen are better equipped to act on the aggressive imperative. The game has continued to evolve.

Bowlers have reacted to this with greater aggression on their part, and this ongoing dialogue has been fascinating. The cricket writer Gideon Haigh once told me on my podcast that the 2015 World Cup featured a battle between T20 batting and Test match bowling.

This England team is the high watermark so far. Their aggression does not come from slogging. They bat with a combination of intent and skills that allows them to coast at 6-an-over, without needing to take too many risks. In normal conditions, thus, they can coast to 300 – any hitting they do beyond that is the bonus that takes them to 350 or 400. It’s a whole new level, illustrated by the fact that at one point a few days ago, they had seven consecutive scores of 300 to their name. Look at their scores over the last few years, in fact, and it is clear that this is the greatest batting side in the history of one-day cricket – by a margin.

There have been stumbles in this World Cup, but in the bigger picture, those are outliers. If England have a bad day in the final and New Zealand play their A-game, England might even lose today. But if Captain Morgan’s men play their A-game, they will coast to victory. New Zealand does not have those gears. No other team in the world does – for now.

But one day, they will all have to learn to play like this.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

As the stakes for winning server segment market share grow ever higher an increasing number of companies are seeking to grasp the latest Holy Grail of multi-chip coherence. The approach promises to better enable applications such as machine learning...(read more)

Today, we are living in the era where whatever we think of as an idea is not far from being implemented…thanks to machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) entering into the...

[[ Click on the title to access the full blog on the Cadence Community site. ]]

Cadence ® Spectre ® AMS Designer is a high-performance mixed-signal simulation system. The ability to use multiple engines, and drive from a variety of platforms enables you to "rev...

[[ Click on the title to access the full blog on the Cadence Community site. ]]

Hello, i am a student who is studying Allegro tool with SKILL.

I have a question about SKILL axlSegDelayAndZ0. The reference says this function "returns the delay and impedance of a cline segment."

I want to know how many components does this tool consider when calculating timing delay from the length. 

How steep is input signal's rise transition? Is rise transition shape isosceles trapezoid or differential increasing shape?

Also, if it is a multi fan-out, the rise transition time will be different net by net. How can this tool can calculate in this case?

I want to hear answers about these questions.

Thank you for reading this long boring questions, and i will be waiting for answers.

This is the 21st installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

When all political parties agree on something, you know you might have a problem. Giriraj Singh, a minister in Narendra Modi’s new cabinet, tweeted this week that our population control law should become a “movement.” This is something that would find bipartisan support – we are taught from school onwards that India’s population is a big problem, and we need to control it.

This is wrong. Contrary to popular belief, our population is not a problem. It is our greatest strength.

The notion that we should worry about a growing population is an intuitive one. The world has limited resources. People keep increasing. Something’s gotta give.

Robert Malthus made just this point in his 1798 book, An Essay on the Principle of Population. He was worried that our population would grow exponentially while resources would grow arithmetically. As more people entered the workforce, wages would fall and goods would become scarce. Calamity was inevitable.

Malthus’s rationale was so influential that this mode of thinking was soon called ‘Malthusian.’ (It is a pejorative today.) A 20th-century follower of his, Harrison Brown, came up with one of my favourite images on this subject, arguing that a growing population would lead to the earth being “covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots.”

Another Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich, published a book called The Population Bomb in 1968, which began with the stirring lines, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Ehrlich was, as you’d guess, a big supporter of India’s coercive family planning programs. ““I don’t see,” he wrote, “how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980.”

None of these fears have come true. A 2007 study by Nicholas Eberstadt called ‘Too Many People?’ found no correlation between population density and poverty. The greater the density of people, the more you’d expect them to fight for resources – and yet, Monaco, which has 40 times the population density of Bangladesh, is doing well for itself. So is Bahrain, which has three times the population density of India.

Not only does population not cause poverty, it makes us more prosperous. The economist Julian Simon pointed out in a 1981 book that through history, whenever there has been a spurt in population, it has coincided with a spurt in productivity. Such as, for example, between Malthus’s time and now. There were around a billion people on earth in 1798, and there are around 7.7 billion today. As you read these words, consider that you are better off than the richest person on the planet then.

Why is this? The answer lies in the title of Simon’s book: The Ultimate Resource. When we speak of resources, we forget that human beings are the finest resource of all. There is no limit to our ingenuity. And we interact with each other in positive-sum ways – every voluntary interactions leaves both people better off, and the amount of value in the world goes up. This is why we want to be part of economic networks that are as large, and as dense, as possible. This is why most people migrate to cities rather than away from them – and why cities are so much richer than towns or villages.

If Malthusians were right, essential commodities like wheat, maize and rice would become relatively scarcer over time, and thus more expensive – but they have actually become much cheaper in real terms. This is thanks to the productivity and creativity of humans, who, in Eberstadt’s words, are “in practice always renewable and in theory entirely inexhaustible.”

The error made by Malthus, Brown and Ehrlich is the same error that our politicians make today, and not just in the context of population: zero-sum thinking. If our population grows and resources stays the same, of course there will be scarcity. But this is never the case. All we need to do to learn this lesson is look at our cities!

This mistaken thinking has had savage humanitarian consequences in India. Think of the unborn millions over the decades because of our brutal family planning policies. How many Tendulkars, Rahmans and Satyajit Rays have we lost? Think of the immoral coercion still carried out on poor people across the country. And finally, think of the condescension of our politicians, asserting that people are India’s problem – but always other people, never themselves.

This arrogance is India’s greatest problem, not our people.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

This is the 24th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Back in the last decade, I was a cricket journalist for a few years. Then, around 12 years ago, I quit. I was jaded as hell. Every game seemed like déjà vu, nothing new, just another round on the treadmill. Although I would remember her fondly, I thought me and cricket were done.

And then I fell in love again. Cricket has changed in the last few years in glorious ways. There have been new ways of thinking about the game. There have been new ways of playing the game. Every season, new kinds of drama form, new nuances spring up into sight. This is true even of what had once seemed the dullest form of the game, one-day cricket. We are entering into a brave new world, and the team leading us there is England. No matter what happens in the World Cup final today – a single game involves a huge amount of luck – this England side are extraordinary. They are the bridge between eras, leading us into a Golden Age of Cricket.

I know that sounds hyperbolic, so let me stun you further by saying that I give the IPL credit for this. And now, having woken up you up with such a jolt on this lovely Sunday morning, let me explain.

Twenty20 cricket changed the game in two fundamental ways. Both ended up changing one-day cricket. The first was strategy.

When the first T20 games took place, teams applied an ODI template to innings-building: pinch-hit, build, slog. But this was not an optimal approach. In ODIs, teams have 11 players over 50 overs. In T20s, they have 11 players over 20 overs. The equation between resources and constraints is different. This means that the cost of a wicket goes down, and the cost of a dot ball goes up. Critically, it means that the value of aggression rises. A team need not follow the ODI template. In some instances, attacking for all 20 overs – or as I call it, ‘frontloading’ – may be optimal.

West Indies won the T20 World Cup in 2016 by doing just this, and England played similarly. And some sides began to realise was that they had been underestimating the value of aggression in one-day cricket as well.

The second fundamental way in which T20 cricket changed cricket was in terms of skills. The IPL and other leagues brought big money into the game. This changed incentives for budding cricketers. Relatively few people break into Test or ODI cricket, and play for their countries. A much wider pool can aspire to play T20 cricket – which also provides much more money. So it makes sense to spend the hundreds of hours you are in the nets honing T20 skills rather than Test match skills. Go to any nets practice, and you will find many more kids practising innovative aggressive strokes than playing the forward defensive.

As a result, batsmen today have a wider array of attacking strokes than earlier generations. Because every run counts more in T20 cricket, the standard of fielding has also shot up. And bowlers have also reacted to this by expanding their arsenal of tricks. Everyone has had to lift their game.

In one-day cricket, thus, two things have happened. One, there is better strategic understanding about the value of aggression. Two, batsmen are better equipped to act on the aggressive imperative. The game has continued to evolve.

Bowlers have reacted to this with greater aggression on their part, and this ongoing dialogue has been fascinating. The cricket writer Gideon Haigh once told me on my podcast that the 2015 World Cup featured a battle between T20 batting and Test match bowling.

This England team is the high watermark so far. Their aggression does not come from slogging. They bat with a combination of intent and skills that allows them to coast at 6-an-over, without needing to take too many risks. In normal conditions, thus, they can coast to 300 – any hitting they do beyond that is the bonus that takes them to 350 or 400. It’s a whole new level, illustrated by the fact that at one point a few days ago, they had seven consecutive scores of 300 to their name. Look at their scores over the last few years, in fact, and it is clear that this is the greatest batting side in the history of one-day cricket – by a margin.

There have been stumbles in this World Cup, but in the bigger picture, those are outliers. If England have a bad day in the final and New Zealand play their A-game, England might even lose today. But if Captain Morgan’s men play their A-game, they will coast to victory. New Zealand does not have those gears. No other team in the world does – for now.

But one day, they will all have to learn to play like this.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

Introduction to AMSD Flex mode and its benefits.(read more)

This blog talks about how to enable the AMS Designer flex mode.(read more)

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from Tamenglong on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from East Kameng Seppa on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

Inout PPC Engine suffers from a cross site request forgery vulnerability.

•Lockheed Martin deploys the 3DEXPERIENCE platform as an engineering and manufacturing planning toolset •Multi-year collaboration aims to speed timelines and improve efficiencies of next generation products •Digital experience platform approach drives advances in complex, sophisticated aircraft innovation

Microsoft Teams Instant Messenger application on Windows 7 SP1 fully patched is vulnerable to remote DLL hijacking.

ManageEngine DataSecurity Plus versions prior to 6.0.1 and ADAudit Plus versions prior to 6.0.3 suffer from an authentication bypass vulnerability.

Phrack: Attacking JavaScript Engines: A case study of JavaScriptCore and CVE-2016-4622.

This is a whitepaper tutorial that describes steps taken to identify post-authentication remote code execution vulnerabilities in ManageEngine version 14.

Source Engine CS:GO BuildID: 4937372 arbitrary code execution exploit.

ManageEngine DataSecurity Plus versions prior to 6.0.1 and ADAudit Plus versions prior to 6.0.3 suffers from a path traversal vulnerability that can lead to remote code execution.

The ManageEngine Asset Explorer windows agent suffers form a remote code execution vulnerability. All versions prior to 1.0.29 are affected.