This is the 15th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

It’s election season, and promises are raining down on voters like rose petals on naïve newlyweds. Earlier this week, the Congress party announced a minimum income guarantee for the poor. This Friday, the Modi government released a budget full of sops. As the days go by, the promises will get bolder, and you might feel important that so much attention is being given to you. Well, the joke is on you.

Every election, HL Mencken once said, is “an advance auction sale of stolen goods.” A bunch of competing mafias fight to rule over you for the next five years. You decide who wins, on the basis of who can bribe you better with your own money. This is an absurd situation, which I tried to express in a limerick I wrote for this page a couple of years ago:

POLITICS: A neta who loves currency notes/ Told me what his line of work denotes./ ‘It is kind of funny./ We steal people’s money/And use some of it to buy their votes.’

We’re the dupes here, and we pay far more to keep this circus going than this circus costs. It would be okay if the parties, once they came to power, provided good governance. But voters have given up on that, and now only want patronage and handouts. That leads to one of the biggest problems in Indian politics: We are stuck in an equilibrium where all good politics is bad economics, and vice versa.

For example, the minimum guarantee for the poor is good politics, because the optics are great. It’s basically Garibi Hatao: that slogan made Indira Gandhi a political juggernaut in the 1970s, at the same time that she unleashed a series of economic policies that kept millions of people in garibi for decades longer than they should have been.

This time, the Congress has released no details, and keeping it vague makes sense because I find it hard to see how it can make economic sense. Depending on how they define ‘poor’, how much income they offer and what the cost is, the plan will either be ineffective or unworkable.

The Modi government’s interim budget announced a handout for poor farmers that seemed rather pointless. Given our agricultural distress, offering a poor farmer 500 bucks a month seems almost like mockery.

Such condescending handouts solve nothing. The poor want jobs and opportunities. Those come with growth, which requires structural reforms. Structural reforms don’t sound sexy as election promises. Handouts do.

A classic example is farm loan waivers. We have reached a stage in our politics where every party has to promise them to assuage farmers, who are a strong vote bank everywhere. You can’t blame farmers for wanting them – they are a necessary anaesthetic. But no government has yet made a serious attempt at tackling the root causes of our agricultural crisis.

Why is it that Good Politics in India is always Bad Economics? Let me put forth some possible reasons. One, voters tend to think in zero-sum ways, as if the pie is fixed, and the only way to bring people out of poverty is to redistribute. The truth is that trade is a positive-sum game, and nations can only be lifted out of poverty when the whole pie grows. But this is unintuitive.

Two, Indian politics revolves around identity and patronage. The spoils of power are limited – that is indeed a zero-sum game – so you’re likely to vote for whoever can look after the interests of your in-group rather than care about the economy as a whole.

Three, voters tend to stay uninformed for good reasons, because of what Public Choice economists call Rational Ignorance. A single vote is unlikely to make a difference in an election, so why put in the effort to understand the nuances of economics and governance? Just ask, what is in it for me, and go with whatever seems to be the best answer.

Four, Politicians have a short-term horizon, geared towards winning the next election. A good policy that may take years to play out is unattractive. A policy that will win them votes in the short term is preferable.

Sadly, no Indian party has shown a willingness to aim for the long term. The Congress has produced new Gandhis, but not new ideas. And while the BJP did make some solid promises in 2014, they did not walk that talk, and have proved to be, as Arun Shourie once called them, UPA + Cow. Even the Congress is adopting the cow, in fact, so maybe the BJP will add Temple to that mix?

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” This election season, my friends, the people of India are on the menu. You have been deveined and deboned, marinated with rhetoric, seasoned with narrative – now enter the oven and vote.

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

This is the 23rd installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

I had a strange dream last night. I dreamt that the government had passed a law that made using laptops illegal. I would have to write this column by hand. I would also have to leave my home in Mumbai to deliver it in person to my editor in Delhi. I woke up trembling and angry – and realised how Indian farmers feel every single day of their lives.

My column today is a tale of two satyagrahas. Both involve farmers, technology and the freedom of choice. One of them began this month – but first, let us go back to the turn of the millennium.

As the 1990s came to an end, cotton farmers across India were in distress. Pests known as bollworms were ravaging crops across the country. Farmers had to use increasing amounts of pesticide to keep them at bay. The costs of the pesticide and the amount of labour involved made it unviable – and often, the crops would fail anyway.

Then, technology came to the rescue. The farmers heard of Bt Cotton, a genetically modified type of cotton that kept these pests away, and was being used around the world. But they were illegal in India, even though no bad effects had ever been recorded. Well, who cares about ‘illegal’ when it is a matter of life and death?

Farmers in Gujarat got hold of Bt Cotton seeds from the black market and planted them. You’ll never guess what happened next. As 2002 began, all cotton crops in Gujarat failed – except the 10,000 hectares that had Bt Cotton. The government did not care about the failed crops. They cared about the ‘illegal’ ones. They ordered all the Bt Cotton crops to be destroyed.

It was time for a satyagraha – and not just in Gujarat. The late Sharad Joshi, leader of the Shetkari Sanghatana in Maharashtra, took around 10,000 farmers to Gujarat to stand with their fellows there. They sat in the fields of Bt Cotton and basically said, ‘Over our dead bodies.’ ¬Joshi’s point was simple: all other citizens of India have access to the latest technology from all over. They are all empowered with choice. Why should farmers be held back?

The satyagraha was successful. The ban on Bt Cotton was lifted.

There are three things I would like to point out here. One, the lifting of the ban transformed cotton farming in India. Over 90% of Indian farmers now use Bt Cotton. India has become the world’s largest producer of cotton, moving ahead of China. According to agriculture expert Ashok Gulati, India has gained US$ 67 billion in the years since from higher exports and import savings because of Bt Cotton. Most importantly, cotton farmers’ incomes have doubled.

Two, GMO crops have become standard across the world. Around 190 million hectares of GMO crops have been planted worldwide, and GMO foods are accepted in 67 countries. The humanitarian benefits have been massive: Golden Rice, a variety of rice packed with minerals and vitamins, has prevented blindness in countless new-born kids since it was introduced in the Philippines.

Three, despite the fear-mongering of some NGOs, whose existence depends on alarmism, the science behind GMO is settled. No harmful side effects have been noted in all these years, and millions of lives impacted positively. A couple of years ago, over 100 Nobel Laureates signed a petition asserting that GMO foods were safe, and blasting anti-science NGOs that stood in the way of progress. There is scientific consensus on this.

The science may be settled, but the politics is not. The government still bans some types of GMO seeds, such as Bt Brinjal, which was developed by an Indian company called Mahyco, and used successfully in Bangladesh. More crucially, a variety called HT Bt Cotton, which fights weeds, is also banned. Weeding takes up to 15% of a farmer’s time, and often makes farming unviable. Farmers across the world use this variant – 60% of global cotton crops are HT Bt. Indian farmers are so desperate for it that they choose to break the law and buy expensive seeds from the black market – but the government is cracking down. A farmer in Haryana had his crop destroyed by the government in May.

On June 10 this year, a farmer named Lalit Bahale in the Akola District of Maharashtra kicked off a satyagraha by planting banned seeds of HT Bt Cotton and Bt Brinjal. He was soon joined by thousands of farmers. Far from our urban eyes, a heroic fight has begun. Our farmers, already victimised and oppressed by a predatory government in countless ways, are fighting for their right to take charge of their lives.

As this brave struggle unfolds, I am left with a troubling question: All those satyagrahas of the past by our great freedom fighters, what were they for, if all they got us was independence and not freedom?

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

Hello,
I'm exploring VManager tool capabilities.

I launched a simulation with xrun, which terminates with a fatal error (`uvm_fatal actually).

Then I imported the flow session, through VManager -> Regression -> Collect Runs, linking the directory with ucm and ucd of just failed run.

VManager imports the test with following attributes:

Total Runs =1

#Passed =1

#Failed =0

What I'm missing here? It should be imported as failed test.

If I right click on flow name and choose Analyze All Runs, VManager brings me to Analysis tab and I can see only a PASSED tag in Runs subwindow.

Thank you for any help

Hi supporters,

I got the following error while I run simulation with gate netlist using Cadence Incisive (v15.20):

----

ncsim(64): 15.20-s076: (c) Copyright 1995-2019 Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
ncsim: *E,DLOALB: Design library 'tcbnxxx' not defined while reading module tcbnxxx.MAOxxx:bv (VST).
ncsim: *F,NOSIMU: Errors initializing simulation 'alu_tb' 

----

xxx: standard library name.

My netlist design uses a cell "MAOxxx". I already included the library behavior model to compile using ncverilog, there is no error while compiling. But when I run with ncsim to execute the test, I got above error.

I tried to run with other vendors such as VCS or MTI, they worked.

Please help to understand the error.

Thanks.

Hi,

I've vhdl block containing fsm . IMC not able to auto extract the state machine coded like this:

There is a intermediate state state_mux  between next_state & state.

Pls. help in guiding IMC how to recognize this FSM coding style? 

Snipped of the fsm code:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               type state_type is (ST_IDLE, ST_ADDRESS, ST_ACK_ADDRESS, ST_READ, ST_ACK_READ, ST_WRITE, ST_ACK_WRITE, ST_IDLE_BYTE);

               signal state : state_type;

               signal state_mux : state_type;

               signal next_state : state_type;

process(state_mux, start)

         begin

               next_state <= state_mux;

               next_count <= (others => '0');

           case (state_mux) is

                 when ST_IDLE => 

                            if(start = '1') then

                                 next_state <= ST_ADDRESS;

                              end if;

            when ST_ADDRESS =>

   …………….

          when others => null;

         end case;

     end process;

process(scl_clk_n, active_rstn)

               begin

                      if(active_rstn = '0') then

                           state <= ST_IDLE after delay_f;

                  elsif(scl_clk_n'event and scl_clk_n = '1') then

                             state <= next_state after delay_f;

                            end if;

end process;

process(state, start)

               begin

                     state_mux <= state;

               if(start = '1') then

                       state_mux <= ST_IDLE;

                              end if;

               end process;

Thanks

Raghu

I have a problem connected with my AXI4 coverage.

I enable coverage collection in AXI4 

      set_config_int("axi4_active_slave_agent_0.monitor.coverModel", "burst_started_enable", 1);
      set_config_int("axi4_active_slave_agent_0.monitor.coverModel", "coverageEnable", 1);

but i don't have a result.

I think the problem in Callback, but i try to connect all callback and i don't have positive result.

Can you help me?

Hello folks,

Greetings.

One of my customer claims that he is using Cadence IES version 18.09.011 with Vivado 2019.2. The version of IES that we officially support with Vivado 2019.2 is 15.20.073. Though the tool is forward compatible, I am not sure what are the versions of IES that are released after 15.20.073. Could you please give me a list of the versions of Cadence IES released after 15.20.073 and which is the latest version as of now ?

Best regards,

Chinmay

Hi,

I am facing this elaboration error when using Xcelium:

Command>

    xmverilog -v200x +access+r +xm64bit -f vlist -reflib plib -timescale 1ns/1ps

Log>

    xmelab: *E,CUVMUR (<name>.v,538|18): instance 'LUTP0.C GLAT3' of design unit 'tlatntscad12' is unresolved in 'worklib.LUTP0:v'.

I guess the plib was not referred to as the simulation configuration because the tlatntscad12 is included in plib.

The plib is compiled by INCISIVE 13.20 and I am using the Xcelium 19.30.

Please tell me the correct command on how to refer to the library directory compiled by different versions.

Thank you,

Specman *search* command allows searching in all loaded modules, but only for a string.

Is there a way to search for a regexp or glob?

Alternatively, is there a way to simply get a list of all loaded files somehow? Then I could use either the "shell" command, or real shell together with grep.

Thanks

Hi,

I'm doing fault injection with ncsim and got stuck at the following (and not so useful) message: "ncsim: *E,FLTIGF: [FLT] Failed to inject fault at circuit_tb.U0.n2174." I already tried with other NETs, with SET, SA0, SA1, always the same error occurs.

My scripts so far, considering I already compiled the Verilog testbench and also the gates from the technology library (gate-level simulation):

#this runs ok

ncelab -work worklib -cdslib circuit/trunk/backend/synthesis/work/cds.lib -logfile ncelab.log -errormax 15 -access +wc -status -timescale 1ps/1ps worklib.circuit_tb -fault_file circuit/trunk/backend/synthesis/scripts/fi.list

#this runs ok
ncsim -fault_good_run -fault_tw 1ns:4ns -fault_work fault_db -fault_overwrite worklib.circuit_tb:module -input ../scripts/fs_strobe.tcl -exit

#this runs NOT OK
ncsim -fault_sim_run -fault_work fault_db worklib.circuit_tb:module -input ../scripts/injection.tcl -exit

After the above command I get: "ncsim: *E,FLTIGF: [FLT] Failed to inject fault at circuit_tb.U0.n2174."

Here are the files called from the commands above.

fi.list:

fault_target circuit_tb.U0.n2174 -type SET+SA1+SA0

fs_strobe.tcl:

fs_strobe circuit_tb.WRITE_OUT circuit_tb.PC_OUT[0]

injection.tcl:

fault -stop_severity 3 -inject -time 2ns -type sa1 circuit_tb.U0.n2174

I already checked the NETs with simvision, so their paths are correct.

Any ideas?

PS: I know about Xcellium, however, I don't have it yet.

No, this isn’t a Hollywood movie. We’re talking about pieces of plane shapes with no connections to them, not an idyllic private oasis in the Caribbean (sorry). Removing shape islands is something you’ve always been able to do in th...(read more)

We have talked about aspects of the in-design symbol edit application mode in the past. This is the environment specific to the Allegro Package Designer layout tools allowing you to work on symbol definitions directly in the context of your layout de...(read more)

Hi, I am in the middle of a design and had no problem going back and forth between schematics and layout. Now I am getting the error message below. I am using Cadence 17.2.

ERROR: Layout database has probably been reverted to an earlier version than that, which was used in the latest flow or the schematic database was synchronized with another board.

The basecopy file generated by the last back-to-front flow not found.

ERROR: Layout database has probably been reverted to an earlier version than that, which was used in the latest flow or the schematic database was synchronized with another board.

The basecopy file generated by the last back-to-front flow not found.

Error: CMFBC-1: The schematic and the layout constraints were not synchronized as the changes done since the last sync up could not be reconciled. Syncing the current version of the schematic or layout databases with a previous version would result in this issue. The  constraint difference report is displayed.

Continuing with "changes-only" processing may result in incorrect constraint updates.

Thanks for your input

Claudia

Greeting to all:

I am new in this tool, only 2 weeks. Trying to create a new Via with smaller size drill hole from exiting 13 mils size to 10 mils size. I got the message as imaged below. Any advise what to do?  Thanks in advance.

Hello All,

I'm currently using OrCAD PCB Designer Professional w/ PSpice (version 16.6-2015).  In the 'Design Object Find Filter' side bar, all options are grayed out and unselectable.  I did attempt to 'Reset UI to Cadence Default' without any luck.  A colleague has no issues with the identical file on his computer.  Any guidance would be much appreciated.  Thanks!

George

Hi everybody,

I've created a symbol with custom pad shapes. Everything looks correct in the symbol editor.

And the 3d view looks correct (upside down to show placement)

But when I try to place it on the pcb the 2 "T" shaped pads aren't in the correct location.

I have the pad shape centered on the pad...

with no offset on the padstack editor.

Does anybody know how to fix this?

Thank you!

Hello All,

starting with version 8.1 the contents of the ce_tools directory will no longer
be shipped with Specman. The directory contains some unsupported AE/R&D
ware and has not been updated for several releases (i.e. most of those old
packages don't work with the latest release).
 
Attached is the contents of this directory. Please read the README before
using any of the packages.


Regards,
-hannes

Hello All,

Following is the einstein's puzzle solved by cadence Incisive92  (solved in less than 3 seconds -> FAST!!!!!!)

Thanks,

Vinay Honnavara

Verification engineer at Keyu Tech

vinayh@keyutech.com

 // Author: Vinay Honnavara

// Einstein formulated this problem : he said that only 2% in the world can solve this problem
// There are 5 different parameters each with 5 different attributes
// The following is the problem

// -> In a street there are five houses, painted five different colors (RED, GREEN, BLUE, YELLOW, WHITE)

// -> In each house lives a person of different nationality (GERMAN, NORWEGIAN, SWEDEN, DANISH, BRITAIN)

// -> These five homeowners each drink a different kind of beverage (TEA, WATER, MILK, COFFEE, BEER),

// -> smoke different brand of cigar (DUNHILL, PRINCE, BLUE MASTER, BLENDS, PALL MALL)

// -> and keep a different pet (BIRD, CATS, DOGS, FISH, HORSES)


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// *************** Einstein's riddle is: Who owns the fish? ***************************
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

/*
Necessary clues:

1. The British man lives in a red house.
2. The Swedish man keeps dogs as pets.
3. The Danish man drinks tea.
4. The Green house is next to, and on the left of the White house.
5. The owner of the Green house drinks coffee.
6. The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.
7. The owner of the Yellow house smokes Dunhill.
8. The man living in the center house drinks milk.
9. The Norwegian lives in the first house.
10. The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
11. The man who keeps horses lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
12. The man who smokes Blue Master drinks beer.
13. The German smokes Prince.
14. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
15. The Blends smoker lives next to the one who drinks water.
*/




typedef enum bit [2:0]  {red, green, blue, yellow, white} house_color_type;
typedef enum bit [2:0]  {german, norwegian, brit, dane, swede} nationality_type;
typedef enum bit [2:0]  {coffee, milk, water, beer, tea} beverage_type;
typedef enum bit [2:0]  {dunhill, prince, blue_master, blends, pall_mall} cigar_type;
typedef enum bit [2:0]  {birds, cats, fish, dogs, horses} pet_type;




class Einstein_problem;

    rand house_color_type house_color[5];
    rand nationality_type nationality[5];
    rand beverage_type beverage[5];
    rand cigar_type cigar[5];
    rand pet_type pet[5];
        rand int arr[5];
    
    constraint einstein_riddle_solver {
    
        
    
        foreach (house_color[i])
            foreach (house_color[j])
               if (i != j)
                house_color[i] != house_color[j];
        foreach (nationality[i])
            foreach (nationality[j])
               if (i != j)
                nationality[i] != nationality[j];
        foreach (beverage[i])
            foreach (beverage[j])
               if (i != j)
                beverage[i] != beverage[j];
        foreach (cigar[i])
            foreach (cigar[j])
               if (i != j)
                cigar[i] != cigar[j];
        foreach (pet[i])
            foreach (pet[j])
               if (i != j)
                pet[i] != pet[j];
    
    
        //1) The British man lives in a red house.
        foreach(nationality[i])
                (nationality[i] == brit) -> (house_color[i] == red);
                
        
        //2) The Swedish man keeps dogs as pets.
        foreach(nationality[i])
                (nationality[i] == swede) -> (pet[i] == dogs);
                
                
        //3) The Danish man drinks tea.        
        foreach(nationality[i])
                (nationality[i] == dane) -> (beverage[i] == tea);
        
        
        //4) The Green house is next to, and on the left of the White house.
        foreach(house_color[i])        
                 if (i<4)
                    (house_color[i] == green) -> (house_color[i+1] == white);
        
        
        //5) The owner of the Green house drinks coffee.
        foreach(house_color[i])
                (house_color[i] == green) -> (beverage[i] == coffee);
                
        
        //6) The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.
        foreach(cigar[i])
                (cigar[i] == pall_mall) -> (pet[i] == birds);
        
        
        //7) The owner of the Yellow house smokes Dunhill.
        foreach(house_color[i])
                (house_color[i] == yellow) -> (cigar[i] == dunhill);
        
        
        //8) The man living in the center house drinks milk.
        foreach(house_color[i])
                if (i==2) // i==2 implies the center house (0,1,2,3,4) 2 is the center
                    beverage[i] == milk;
        
        
        
        //9) The Norwegian lives in the first house.
        foreach(nationality[i])        
                if (i==0) // i==0 is the first house
                    nationality[i] == norwegian;
        
        
        
        //10) The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
        foreach(cigar[i])        
                if (i==0) // if the man who smokes blends lives in the first house then the person with cats will be in the second
                    (cigar[i] == blends) -> (pet[i+1] == cats);
        
        foreach(cigar[i])        
                if (i>0 && i<4) // if the man is not at the ends he can be on either side
                    (cigar[i] == blends) -> (pet[i-1] == cats) || (pet[i+1] == cats);
        
        foreach(cigar[i])        
                if (i==4) // if the man is at the last
                    (cigar[i] == blends) -> (pet[i-1] == cats);
        
        foreach(cigar[i])        
                if (i==4)
                    (pet[i] == cats) -> (cigar[i-1] == blends);
        
        
        //11) The man who keeps horses lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
        foreach(pet[i])
                if (i==0) // similar to the last case
                    (pet[i] == horses) -> (cigar[i+1] == dunhill);
        
        foreach(pet[i])        
                if (i>0 & i<4)
                    (pet[i] == horses) -> (cigar[i-1] == dunhill) || (cigar[i+1] == dunhill);
                    
        foreach(pet[i])        
                if (i==4)
                    (pet[i] == horses) -> (cigar[i-1] == dunhill);
                    


        //12) The man who smokes Blue Master drinks beer.
        foreach(cigar[i])
                (cigar[i] == blue_master) -> (beverage[i] == beer);
        
        
        //13) The German smokes Prince.
        foreach(nationality[i])        
                (nationality[i] == german) -> (cigar[i] == prince);
        

        //14) The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
        foreach(nationality[i])
                if (i==0)
                    (nationality[i] == norwegian) -> (house_color[i+1] == blue);
        
        foreach(nationality[i])        
                if (i>0 & i<4)
                    (nationality[i] == norwegian) -> (house_color[i-1] == blue) || (house_color[i+1] == blue);
        
        foreach(nationality[i])        
                if (i==4)
                    (nationality[i] == norwegian) -> (house_color[i-1] == blue);
        

        //15) The Blends smoker lives next to the one who drinks water.            
        foreach(cigar[i])            
                if (i==0)
                    (cigar[i] == blends) -> (beverage[i+1] == water);
        
        foreach(cigar[i])        
                if (i>0 & i<4)
                    (cigar[i] == blends) -> (beverage[i-1] == water) || (beverage[i+1] == water);
                    
        foreach(cigar[i])        
                if (i==4)
                    (cigar[i] == blends) -> (beverage[i-1] == water);
        
    } // end of the constraint block
    


    // display all the attributes
    task display ;
        foreach (house_color[i])
            begin
                $display("HOUSE : %s",house_color[i].name());
            end
        foreach (nationality[i])
            begin
                $display("NATIONALITY : %s",nationality[i].name());
            end
        foreach (beverage[i])
            begin
                $display("BEVERAGE : %s",beverage[i].name());
            end
        foreach (cigar[i])
            begin
                $display("CIGAR: %s",cigar[i].name());
            end
        foreach (pet[i])
            begin
                $display("PET : %s",pet[i].name());
            end
        foreach (pet[i])
            if (pet[i] == fish)
                $display("THE ANSWER TO THE RIDDLE : The %s has %s ", nationality[i].name(), pet[i].name());
    
    endtask // end display
    
    
endclass




program main ;

    initial
        begin
            Einstein_problem ep;
            ep = new();
            if(!ep.randomize())
                $display("ERROR");
            ep.display();
        end
endprogram // end of main

        

Exporting a waveform into a vcsv file returns the error:

The wsSaveTraceCommand command generated an exception basic_string::_S_construct null not valid.

Only the first row of the vcsv file is created (";Version, 1, 0"). This was the first time I've exported waveforms generated with Assembler. I had no issue before with the combination of ADE L, Parametric sweep and ViVA XL. My project uses ICADV 12.3. I have not found any related forum entry or documentation. How could I export the waveforms in vcsv? Exporting the values into a table and then exporting into a csv works, but my post-processing script was written for vcsv format.

Hello,

I am using Virtuoso 6.1.7.

I am performing the parasitic extraction of a MOM cap array of 32 caps. I use Quantus QRC and I enable field solver. I select “QRCFS” for field solver type and “High” for field solver accuracy. The unit MOM cap is horizontally and vertically symmetric. The array looks like the sketch below and there are no other structures except the unit caps:

Rationally speaking, the capacitance values of the unit caps should be symmetric with respect to a vertical symmetry axis that is between cap16 and cap17 (shown with dashed red line). For example,

the capacitance of cap1 should be equal to the capacitance of cap32

the capacitance of cap2 should be equal to the capacitance of cap31

etc. as there are no other structures around the caps that might create some asymmetry.

Nevertheless, what I observe is the following after the parasitic extraction:

As it can be seen, the result is not symmetric contrary to what is expected. I should also add that I do not observe this when I perform parasitic extraction with no filed solver.

Why do I get this result? Is it an artifact resulting from the field solver tool (my conclusion was yes but still it must be verified)? If not, how can something like this happen?

Many thanks in advance.

Best regards,

Can

Cadence Liberate Trio Characterization Suite, ARM-based Graviton Processors, and Amazon Web Services (AWS) Cloud have joined forces to cater to the High-Performance Computing, Machine Learning/Artificial Intelligence, and Big Data Analytics sectors. (read more)

Let’s review a key characteristic feature of Cadence Liberate AMS Mixed-Signal Characterization that offers to you ease of use along with many other benefits like automation of standard Liberty model creation and improvement of up to 20X throughput.(read more)

Key Findings:  Nearly 100% of SoCs are mixed-signal to some extent.  Every one of these could benefit from the use of a metrics-driven unified verification methodology for mixed-signal (MD-UVM-MS), but the modeling step is the biggest hurdle to overcome.  Without the magical models, the process breaks down for lack of performance, or holes in the chip verification.

In the last installment of The Low Road, we were at the mixed-signal verification party. While no one talked about it, we all saw it: The party was raging and everyone was having a great time, but they were all dancing around that big elephant right in the middle of the room. For mixed-signal verification, that elephant is named Modeling.

To get to a fully verified SoC, the analog portions of the design have to run orders of magnitude faster than the speediest SPICE engine available. That means an abstraction of the behavior must be created. It puts a lot of people off when you tell them they have to do something extra to get done with something sooner. Guess what, it couldn’t be more true. If you want to keep dancing around like the elephant isn’t there, then enjoy your day. If you want to see about clearing the pachyderm from the dance floor, you’ll want to read on a little more….

Figure 1: The elephant in the room: who’s going to create the model?

 Whose job is it?

Modeling analog/mixed-signal behavior for use in SoC verification seems like the ultimate hot potato.  The analog team that creates the IP blocks says it doesn't have the expertise in digital verification to create a high-performance model. The digital designers say they don’t understand anything but ones and zeroes. The verification team, usually digitally-centric by background, are stuck in the middle (and have historically said “I just use the collateral from the design teams to do my job; I don’t create it”).

If there is an SoC verification team, then ensuring that the entire chip is verified ultimately rests upon their shoulders, whether or not they get all of the models they need from the various design teams for the project. That means that if a chip does not work because of a modeling error, it ought to point back to the verification team. If not, is it just a “systemic error” not accounted for in the methodology? That seems like a bad answer.

That all makes the most valuable guy in the room the engineer, whose knowledge spans the three worlds of analog, digital, and verification. There are a growing number of “mixed-signal verification engineers” found on SoC verification teams. Having a specialist appears to be the best approach to getting the job done, and done right.

So, my vote is for the verification team to step up and incorporate the expertise required to do a complete job of SoC verification, analog included. (I know my popularity probably did not soar with the attendees of DVCON with that statement, but the job has to get done).

It’s a game of trade-offs

The difference in computations required for continuous time versus discrete time behavior is orders of magnitude (as seen in Figure 2 below). The essential detail versus runtime tradeoff is a key enabler of verification techniques like software-driven testbenches. Abstraction is a lossy process, so care must be taken to fully understand the loss and test those elements in the appropriate domain (continuous time, frequency, etc.).

Figure 2: Modeling is required for performance

AFE for instance

The traditional separation of baseband and analog front-end (AFE) chips has shifted for the past several years. Advances in process technology, analog-to-digital converters, and the desire for cost reduction have driven both a re-architecting and re-partitioning of the long-standing baseband/AFE solution. By moving more digital processing to the AFE, lower cost architectures can be created, as well as reducing those 130 or so PCB traces between the chips.

There is lots of good scholarly work from a few years back on this subject, such as Digital Compensation of Dynamic Acquisition Errors at the Front-End of ADCS and Digital Compensation for Analog Front-Ends: A New Approach to Wireless Transceiver Design.

Figure 3: AFE evolution from first reference (Parastoo)

The digital calibration and compensation can be achieved by the introduction of a programmable solution. This is in fact the most popular approach amongst the mobile crowd today. By using a microcontroller, the software algorithms become adaptable to process-related issues and modifications to protocol standards.

However, for the SoC verification team, their job just got a whole lot harder. To determine if the interplay of the digital control and the analog function is working correctly, the software algorithms must be simulated on the combination of the two. That is, here is a classic case of inseparable mixed-signal verification.

So, what needs to be in the model is the big question. And the answer is, a lot. For this example, the main sources of dynamic error at the front-end of ADCs are critical for the non-linear digital filtering that is highly frequency dependent. The correction scheme must be verified to show that the nonlinearities are cancelled across the entire bandwidth of the ADC. 

This all means lots of simulation. It means that the right level of detail must be retained to ensure the integrity of the verification process. This means that domain experience must be added to the list of expertise of that mixed-signal verification engineer.

Back to the pachyderm

There is a lot more to say on this subject, and lots will be said in future posts. The important starting point is the recognition that the potential flaw in the system needs to be examined. It needs to be examined by a specialist.  Maybe a second opinion from the application domain is needed too.

So, put that cute little elephant on your desk as a reminder that the beast can be tamed.

Steve Carlson

Related stories

- It’s Late, But the Party is Just Getting Started

Key Findings: Many more design teams will be reaching the mixed-signal methodology tipping point in 2015. That means you need to have a (verification) plan, and measure and execute against it.

As 2014 draws to a close, it is time to look ahead to the coming years and make a plan. While the macro view of the chip design world shows that is has been a mixed-signal world for a long time, it is has been primarily the digital teams that have rapidly evolved design and verification practices over the past decade. Well, I claim that is about to change. 2015 will be a watershed year for many more design teams because of the following factors:

• 85% of designs are mixed signal, and it is going to stay that way (there is no turning back)
• Advanced node drives new techniques, but they will be applied on all nodes
• Equilibrium of mixed-signal designs being challenged, complexity raises risk level
• Tipping point signs are evident and pervasive, things are going to change
• The convergence of “big A” and “big D” demands true mixed-signal practices

Reason 1: Mixed-signal is dominant

To begin the examination of what is going to change and why, let’s start with what is not changing. IBS reports that mixed signal accounts for over 85% of chip design starts in 2014, and that percentage will rise, and hold steady at 85% in the coming years. It is a mixed-signal world and there is no turning back!

Figure 1. IBS: Mixed-signal design starts as percent of total

The foundational nature of mixed-signal designs in the semiconductor industry is well established. The reason it is exciting is that a stable foundation provides a platform for driving change. (It’s hard to drive on crumbling infrastructure.  If you’re from California, you know what I mean, between the potholes on the highways and the earthquakes and everything.)

Reason 2: Innovation in many directions, mostly mixed-signal applications

While the challenges being felt at the advanced nodes, such as double patterning and adoption of FinFET devices, have slowed some from following onto to nodes past 28nm, innovation has just turned in different directions. Applications for Internet of Things, automotive, and medical all have strong mixed-signal elements in their semiconductor content value proposition. What is critical to recognize is that many of the design techniques that were initially driven by advanced-node programs have merit across the spectrum of active semiconductor process technologies. For example, digitally controlled, calibrated, and compensated analog IP, along with power-reducing mutli-supply domains, power shut-off, and state retention are being applied in many programs on “legacy” nodes.

Another graph from IBS shows that the design starts at 45nm and below will continue to grow at a healthy pace.  The data also shows that nodes from 65nm and larger will continue to comprise a strong majority of the overall starts. 

Figure 2.  IBS: Design starts per process node

TSMC made a comprehensive announcement in September related to “wearables” and the Internet of Things. From their press release:

TSMC’s ultra-low power process lineup expands from the existing 0.18-micron extremely low leakage (0.18eLL) and 90-nanometer ultra low leakage (90uLL) nodes, and 16-nanometer FinFET technology, to new offerings of 55-nanometer ultra-low power (55ULP), 40ULP and 28ULP, which support processing speeds of up to 1.2GHz. The wide spectrum of ultra-low power processes from 0.18-micron to 16-nanometer FinFET is ideally suited for a variety of smart and power-efficient applications in the IoT and wearable device markets. Radio frequency and embedded Flash memory capabilities are also available in 0.18um to 40nm ultra-low power technologies, enabling system level integration for smaller form factors as well as facilitating wireless connections among IoT products.

Compared with their previous low-power generations, TSMC’s ultra-low power processes can further reduce operating voltages by 20% to 30% to lower both active power and standby power consumption and enable significant increases in battery life—by 2X to 10X—when much smaller batteries are demanded in IoT/wearable applications.

The focus on power is quite evident and this means that all of the power management and reduction techniques used in advanced node designs will be coming to legacy nodes soon.

Integration and miniaturization are being pursued from the system-level in, as well as from the process side. Techniques for power reduction and system energy efficiency are central to innovations under way.  For mixed-signal program teams, this means there is an added dimension of complexity in the verification task. If this dimension is not methodologically addressed, the level of risk adds a new dimension as well.

Reason 3: Trends are pushing the limits of established design practices

Risk is the bane of every engineer, but without risk there is no progress. And, sometimes the amount of risk is not something that can be controlled. Figure 3 shows some of the forces at work that cause design teams to undertake more risk than they would ideally like. With price and form factor as primary value elements in many growing markets, integration of analog front-end (AFE) with digital processing is becoming commonplace.  

Figure 3.  Trends pushing mixed-signal out of equilibrium

The move to the sweet spot of manufacturing at 28nm enables more integration, while providing excellent power and performance parameters with the best cost per transistor. Variation becomes great and harder to control. For analog design, this means more digital assistance for calibration and compensation. For greatest flexibility and resiliency, many will opt for embedding a microcontroller to perform the analog control functions in software. Finally, the first wave of leaders have already crossed the methodology bridge into true mixed-signal design and verification; those who do not follow are destined to fall farther behind.

Reason 4: The tipping point accelerants are catching fire

The factors cited in Reason 3 all have a technical grounding that serves to create pain in the chip-development process. The more factors that are present, the harder it is to ignore the pain and get the treatment relief  afforded by adopting known best practices for truly mixed-signal design (versus divide and conquer along analog and digital lines design).

In the past design performance was measured in MHz with simple static timing and power analysis. Design flows were conveniently partitioned, literally and figuratively, along analog and digital boundaries. Today, however, there are gigahertz digital signals that interact at the package and board level in analog-like ways. New, dynamic power analysis methods enabled by advanced library characterization must be melded into new design flows. These flows comprehend the growing amount of feedback between analog and digital functions that are becoming so interlocked as to be inseparable. This interlock necessitates design flows that include metrics-driven and software-driven testbenches, cross fabric analysis, electrically aware design, and database interoperability across analog and digital design environments.

Figure 4.  Tipping point indicators

Energy efficiency is a universal driver at this point.  Be it cost of ownership in the data center or battery life in a cell phone or wearable device, using less power creates more value in end products. However, layering multiple energy management and optimization techniques on top of complex mixed-signal designs adds yet more complexity demanding adoption of “modern” mixed-signal design practices.

Reason 5: Convergence of analog and digital design

Divide and conquer is always a powerful tool for complexity management.  However, as the number of interactions across the divide increase, the sub-optimality of those frontiers becomes more evident. Convergence is the name of the game.  Just as analog and digital elements of chips are converging, so will the industry practices associated with dealing with the converged world.

Figure 5. Convergence drivers

Truly mixed-signal design is a discipline that unites the analog and digital domains. That means that there is a common/shared data set (versus forcing a single cockpit or user model on everyone). 

In verification the modern saying is “start with the end in mind”. That means creating a formal approach to the plan of what will be test, how it will be tested, and metrics for success of the tests. Organizing the mechanics of testbench development using the Unified Verification Methodology (UVM) has proven benefits. The mixed-signal elements of SoC verification are not exempted from those benefits.

Competition is growing more fierce in the world for semiconductor design teams. Not being equipped with the best-known practices creates a competitive deficit that is hard to overcome with just hard work. As the landscape of IC content drives to a more energy-efficient mixed-signal nature, the mounting risk posed by old methodologies may cause causalities in the coming year. Better to move forward with haste and create a position of strength from which differentiation and excellence in execution can be forged.

Summary

2015 is going to be a banner year for mixed-signal design and verification methodologies. Those that have forged ahead are in a position of execution advantage. Those that have not will be scrambling to catch up, but with the benefits of following a path that has been proven by many market leaders.

Key Findings:  There are a host of issues that arise in mixed-signal verification.  As discussed in earlier blogs, the industry trends indicate that teams need to prepare themselves for a more mixed world.  The good news is that these top five pitfalls are all avoidable.

It’s always interesting to study the human condition.  Watching the world through the lens of mixed-signal verification brings an interesting microcosm into focus.  The top 5 items that I regularly see vexing teams are:

1. When there’s a bug, whose problem is it?
2. Verification team is the lightning rod
3. Three (conflicting) points of view
4. Wait, there’s more… software
5. There’s a whole new language

Reason 1: When there’s a bug, whose problem is it?

It actually turns out to be a good thing when a bug is found during the design process.  Much, much better than when the silicon arrives back from the foundry of course. Whether by sheer luck, or a structured approach to verification, sometimes a bug gets discovered. The trouble in mixed-signal design occurs when that bug is near the boundary of an analog and a digital domain.

Figure 1.   Whose bug is it?

Typically designers are a diligent sort and make sure that their block works as desired. However, when things go wrong during integration, it is usually also project crunch time. So, it has to be the other guy’s bug, right?

A step in the right direction is to have a third party, a mixed-signal verification expert, apply rigorous methods to the mixed-signal verification task.  But, that leads to number 2 on my list.

Reason 2: Verification team is the lightning rod

Having a dedicated verification team with mixed-signal expertise is a great start, but what can typically happen is that team is hampered by the lack of availability of a fast executing model of the analog behavior (best practice today being a SystemVerilog real number model – SV_RNM). That model is critical because it enables orders of magnitude more tests to be run against the design in the same timeframe. 

Without that model, there will be a testing deficit. So, when the bugs come in, it is easy for everyone to point their finger at the verification team.

Figure 2.  It’s the verification team’s fault

Yes, the model creates a new validation task – it’s validation – but the speed-up enabled by the model more than compensates in terms of functional coverage and schedule.

The postscript on this finger-pointing is the institutionalization of SV-RNM. And, of course, the verification team gets its turn.

Figure 3.  Verification team’s revenge

Reason 3: Three (conflicting) points of view

The third common issue arises when the finger-pointing settles down. There is still a delineation of responsibility that is often not easy to achieve when designs of a truly mixed-signal nature are being undertaken.  

Figure 4.  Points of view and roles

Figure 4 outlines some of the delegated responsibility, but notice that everyone is still potentially on the hook to create a model. It is questions of purpose, expertise, bandwidth, and convention that go into the decision about who will “own” each model. It is not uncommon for the modeling task to be a collaborative effort where the expertise on analog behavior comes from the analog team, while the verification team ensures that the model is constructed in such a manner that it will fit seamlessly into the overall chip verification. Less commonly, the digital design team does the modeling simply to enable the verification of their own work.

Reason 4: Wait, there’s more… software

As if verifying the function of a chip was not hard enough, there is a clear trend towards product offerings that include software along with the chip. In the mixed-signal design realm, many times this software has among its functions things like calibration and compensation that provide a flexible way of delivering guards against parameter drift. When the combination of the chip and the software are the product, they need to be verified together. This puts an enormous premium on fast executing SV-RNM.

Figure 5.   There’s software analog and digital

While the added dimension of software to the verification task creates new heights of complexity, it also serves as a very strong driver to get everyone aligned and motivated to adopt best known practices for mixed-signal verification.  This is an opportunity to show superior ability!

Figure 6.  Change in perspective, with the right methodology

Reason 5: There’s a whole new language

Communication is of vital importance in a multi-faceted, multi-team program.  Time zones, cultures, and personalities aside, mixed-signal verification needs to be a collaborative effort.  Terminology can be a big stumbling block in getting to a common understanding. If we take a look at the key areas where significant improvement can usually be made, we can start to see the breadth of knowledge that is required to “get” the entirety of the picture:

• Structure – Verification planning and management
• Methodology – UVM (Unified Verification Methodology – Accellera Standard)
• Measure – MDV (Metrics-driven verification)
• Multi-engine – Software, emulation, FPGA proto, formal, static, VIP
• Modeling – SystemVerilog (discrete time) down to SPICE (continuous time)
• Languages – SystemVerilog, Verilog, Verilog-AMS, VHDL, SPICE, PSL, CPF, UPF

Each of these areas has its own jumble of terminology and acronyms. It never hurts to create a team glossary to start with. Heck, I often get my LDO, IFV, and UDT all mixed up myself.

Summary

Yes, there are a lot of things that make it hard for the humans involved in the process of mixed-signal design and verification, but there is a lot that can be improved once the pain is felt (no pain, no gain is akin to no bugs, no verification methodology change). If we take a look at the key areas from the previous section, we can put a different lens on them and describe the value that they bring:

• Structure – Uniformly organized, auditable, predictable, transparency
• Methodology – Reusable, productive, portable, industry standard
• Measure – Quantified progress, risk/quality management, precise goals
• Multi-engine – Faster execution, improved schedule, enables new quality level
• Modeling – Enabler, flexible, adaptable for diverse applications/design styles
• Languages – Flexible, complete, robust, standard, scalability to best practices

With all of this value firmly in hand, we can turn our thoughts to happier words:

…  stay tuned for more!

 Steve Carlson

Analog and Mixed-signal (AMS) designs are increasingly using active power management to minimize power consumption. Typical mixed-signal design uses several power domains and operate in a dozen or more power modes including multiple functional, standby and test modes. To save power, parts of design not active in a mode are shut down or may operate at reduced supply voltage when high performance is not required. These and other low power techniques are applied on both analog and digital parts of the design. Digital designers capture power intent in standard formats like Common Power Format (CPF), IEEE1801 (aka Unified Power Format or UPF) or Liberty and apply it top-down throughout design, verification and implementation flows. Analog parts are often designed bottom-up in schematic without upfront defined power intent. Verifying that low power intent is implemented correctly in mixed-signal design is very challenging. If not discovered early, errors like wrongly connected power nets, missing level shifters or isolations cells can cause costly rework or even silicon re-spin. 

Mixed-signal designers rely on simulation for functional verification. Although still necessary for electrical and performance verification, running simulation on so many power modes is not an effective verification method to discover low power errors. It would be nice to augment simulation with formal low power verification but a specification of power intent for analog/mixed-signal blocs is missing. So how do we obtain it? Can we “extract” it from already built analog circuit? Fortunately, yes we can, and we will describe an automated way to do so!

Virtuoso Power Manager is new tool released in the Virtuoso IC6.1.8 platform which is capable of managing power intent in an Analog/MS design which is captured in Virtuoso Schematic Editor. In setup phase, the user identifies power and ground nets and registers special devices like level shifters and isolation cells. The user has the option to import power intent into IEEE1801 format, applicable for top level or any of the blocks in design. Virtuoso Power Manager uses this information to traverse the schematic and extract complete power intent for the entire design. In the final stage, Virtuoso Power Manager exports the power intent in IEEE1801 format as an input to the formal verification tool (Cadence Conformal-LP) for static verification of power intent.

Cadence and Infineon have been collaborating on the requirements and validation of the Virtuoso Power Manager tool and Low Power verification solution on real designs. A summary of collaboration results were presented at the DVCon conference in Munich, in October of 2018.  Please look for the paper in the conference proceedings for more details. Alternately, can view our Cadence webinar on Verifying Low-Power Intent in Mixed-Signal Design Using Formal Method for more information.

Cadence_SPB_17.4-2019 + Matlab R2019a

请参考本文档中的步骤进行操作

1，打开BJT_AMP.opj

2，设置Matlab路径

3，打开BJT_AMP_SLPS.slx

4，打开后，设置PSpiceBlock，出现或CEFSimpleUI.exe停止工作

5，添加模块

6，相同

7，打开pspsim.slx

8，相同

9，打开C： Cadence Cadence_SPB_17.4-2019 tools bin

orCEFSimpleUI.exe和orCEFSimple.exe

10，相同

我想问一下如何解决，非常感谢！

Since the release of the Automated Device Placement and Routing solution last year, we have continued to improve and build upon it. In this blog, I’ll talk about the latest addition—the Auto Device Array form—how this is an integral piece of the new Automated Device Placement and Routing solution.(read more)

This blog discusses key features of concurrently editing a hierarchical cellview.(read more)

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

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

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

ભારત સરકારે ત્રીજી મે બાદ લૉકડાઉન 3.0ની જાહેરાત કરી છે, જે 17મી મે સુધી ચાલશે. આ દરમિયાન દેશના અલગ અલગ જિલ્લાઓને ઝોન પ્રમાણે વહેંચી દેવામાં આવ્યા છે. આ ઉપરાંત ઝોન પ્રમાણે લૉકડાઉનના નિયમોમાં છૂટછાટ આપવામાં આવી છે. કયા ઝોનમાં શું છૂટછાટ આપવામાં આવી છે તે ઇન્ફોગ્રાફિસથી સમજીઓ...

વિશાખાપટ્ટનમ ખાતે ગુરુવારે થયેલી ગેસ લીકની દુર્ઘટનાએ ઇતિહાસની સૌથી મોટી ભોપાલ ગેસ દુર્ઘટનાની સ્મૃતિ તાજા કરી દીધી. દુનિયાએ જોયેલી કેટલીક આવી જ ઔદ્યોગિક દુર્ઘટનાઓ પર એક નજર કરીએ...

ઈડીએ જણાવ્યું કે જે સંપતિ જપ્ત કરવામાં આવી રહી છે તેમાં મુંબઈ સ્થિત એક 9 માળનું ભવન સામેલ છે

આ કાર્યક્રમમાં પુરુષો ઓછામાં ઓછા કપડામાં આવે છે, મોટાભાગના પુરુષો જાપાની લંગોટમાં જોવા મળ્યા

Amazon, BigBasket, Grofers અને MedLife, લોકડાઉન દરમિયાન જીવના જોખમે ડિલિવરી કરતા બહાદૂુરોને બિરદાવે છે.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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