1 Netherlands Antillean Guilder = 1289.1043 Tanzanian Shilling

1 Netherlands Antillean Guilder = 88.9316 Pakistani Rupee

1 Netherlands Antillean Guilder = 235.0663 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 Estonian Kroon = 708.7848 Uzbekistan Som

1 Estonian Kroon = 162.2584 Tanzanian Shilling

1 Estonian Kroon = 11.1937 Pakistani Rupee

1 Estonian Kroon = 29.5876 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 Danish Krone = 1469.1392 Uzbekistan Som

1 Danish Krone = 336.3223 Tanzanian Shilling

1 Danish Krone = 23.2019 Pakistani Rupee

1 Danish Krone = 61.3279 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 Fiji Dollar = 4486.8267 Uzbekistan Som

1 Fiji Dollar = 1027.1455 Tanzanian Shilling

1 Fiji Dollar = 70.8598 Pakistani Rupee

1 Fiji Dollar = 187.2985 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 New Zealand Dollar = 6204.8858 Uzbekistan Som

1 New Zealand Dollar = 1420.4518 Tanzanian Shilling

1 New Zealand Dollar = 97.9929 Pakistani Rupee

1 New Zealand Dollar = 259.0173 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 Croatian Kuna = 1456.9242 Uzbekistan Som

1 Croatian Kuna = 333.526 Tanzanian Shilling

1 Croatian Kuna = 23.009 Pakistani Rupee

1 Croatian Kuna = 60.818 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 2974.075 Uzbekistan Som

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 680.8393 Tanzanian Shilling

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 46.9691 Pakistani Rupee

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 124.1501 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 Dominican Peso = 183.6651 Uzbekistan Som

1 Dominican Peso = 42.0455 Tanzanian Shilling

1 Dominican Peso = 2.9006 Pakistani Rupee

1 Dominican Peso = 7.6669 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 2946.9038 Uzbekistan Som

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 674.6191 Tanzanian Shilling

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 46.54 Pakistani Rupee

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 123.0158 Kazakhstan Tenge

1 Brunei Dollar = 7152.9655 Uzbekistan Som

1 Brunei Dollar = 1637.4906 Tanzanian Shilling

1 Brunei Dollar = 112.9658 Pakistani Rupee

1 Brunei Dollar = 298.594 Kazakhstan Tenge

As a leading venture capitalist in the electronics technology, as well as CEO of Cadence, Lip-Bu Tan has unique insights into ongoing changes that will impact EDA providers and users. Tan shared some of those insights in a “fireside chat” with Ed Sperling, editor in chief of Semiconductor Engineering, at the Design Automation Conference (DAC 2015) on June 9.

Topics of this discussion included industry consolidation, the need for more talent and more startups, Internet of Things (IoT) opportunities and challenges, the shift from ICs to full product development, and the challenges of advanced nodes. Following are some excerpts from this conversation, held at the DAC Pavilion theater on the exhibit floor.

Ed Sperling (left) and Lip-Bu Tan (right) discuss trends in semiconductors and EDA

Q: As you look out over the semiconductor and EDA industries these days, what worries you most?

Tan: At the top of my list is all the consolidation that is going on. Secondly, chip design complexity is increasing substantially. Time-to-market pressure is growing and advanced nodes have challenges.

The other thing I worry about is that we need to have more startups. There’s a lot of innovation that needs to happen. And this industry needs more top talent. At Cadence, we have a program to recruit over 10% of new hires every year from college graduates. We need new blood and new ideas.

Q: EDA vendors were acquiring companies for many years, but now the startups are pretty much gone. Where does the next wave of innovation come from?

Tan: I’ve been an EDA CEO for the last seven years and I really enjoy it because so much innovation is needed. System providers have very big challenges and very different needs. You have to find the opportunities and go out and provide the solutions.

The opportunities are not just in basic tools. Massive parallelism is critical, and the power challenge is huge. Time to market is critical, and for the IoT companies, cost is going to be critical. If you want to take on some good engineering challenges, this is the most exciting time.

Q: You live two lives—you’re a CEO but you’re also an investor. Where are the investments going these days and where are we likely to see new startups?

Tan: Clearly everybody is chasing the IoT. There is a lot of opportunity in the cloud, in the data center. Also, I’m a big believer in video, so I back companies that are video related. A big area is automotive. ADAS [Advanced Driver Assistance Systems] is a tremendous opportunity.

These companies can help us understand how the industry is transforming, and then we can provide solutions, either in terms of IP, tools, or the PCB. Then we need to connect from the system level down to semiconductors. I think it’s a different way to design.

Q: What happens as we start moving from companies looking to design a semiconductor to system companies who are doing things from the perspective that we have this purpose for our software?

Tan: We are extending from EDA to what we call system design enablement, and we are becoming more application driven. The application at the system level will drive the silicon design. We need to help companies look at the whole system including the power envelope and signal integrity. You don’t want to be in a position where you design a chip all the way to fabrication and then find the power is too high.

We help the customers with hardware/software co-design and co-verification. We have a design suite and a verification suite that can provide customers with high-level abstractions, as well as verify IP blocks at the system level. Then we can break things down to the component level with system constraints in mind, and drive power-aware, system-aware design.

We are starting to move into vertical markets. For example, medical is a tremendous opportunity.

Q: How does this approach change what you provide to customers?

Tan: Every year I spend time meeting with customers. I think it is very important to understand what they are trying to design, and it is also important to know the customer’s customer requirements. We might say, “Wait a minute, for this design you may want to think about power or the library you’re using.” We help them understand what foundry they should use and what process they should use. They don’t view me as a vendor—they view me as a partner.

We also work very closely with our IP and foundry partners. We work as one team—the ultimate goal is customer success.

Q: Is everybody going to say, FinFETs are beautiful, we’re going to go down to 10nm or 7nm—or is it a smaller number of companies who will continue down that path?

Tan: Some of the analog/mixed-signal companies don’t need to go that far. We love those customers—we have close to 50% of that business. But we also have customers in the graphics or processor area who are really pushing the envelope, and need to be in 16nm, 14nm, or 10nm. We work very closely with those guys to make sure they can go into FinFETs.

We always want to work with the customer to make sure they have a first-time silicon success. If you have to do a re-spin, you miss the opportunity and it’s very costly.

Q: There’s a new market that is starting to explode—IoT. How real is that world to you? Everyone talks about large numbers, but is it showing up in terms of tools?

Tan: Everybody is talking about huge profits, but a lot of the time I think it is just connecting old devices that you have. Billions of units, absolutely yes, but if you look close enough the silicon percentage of that revenue is very tiny. A lot of the profit is on the service side. So you really need to look at the service killer app you are trying to provide.

What’s most important to us in the IoT market is the IP business. That’s why we bought Tensilica—it’s programmable, so you can find the killer app more quickly. The other challenges are time to market, low power, and low cost.

Q: Where is system design enablement going? Does it expand outside the traditional market for EDA?

Tan: It’s not just about tools. IP is now 11% of our revenue. At the PCB level, we acquired a company called Sigrity, and through that we are able to drive system analysis for power, signal integrity, and thermal. And then we look at some of the verticals and provide modeling all the way from the system level to the component level. We make sure that we provide a solution to the end customer, rather than something piecemeal.

Q: What do you think DAC will look like in five years?

Tan: It’s getting smaller. We need to see more startups and innovative IP solutions. I saw a few here this year, and that’s good. We need to encourage small startups.

Q: Where do we get the people to pull this off? I don’t see too many people coming into EDA.

Tan: I talk to a lot of university students, and I tell them that this small industry is a gold mine. A lot of innovation is needed. We need them to come in [to EDA] rather than join Google or Facebook. Those are great companies, but there is a lot of fundamental physical innovation we need.

Richard Goering

Related Blog Posts

- Gary Smith at DAC 2015: How EDA Can Expand Into New Directions

- DAC 2015: Google Smart Contact Lens Project Stretches Limits of IC Design

- Q&A with Nimish Modi: Going Beyond Traditional EDA

Design and verification standards are critical if we want to get a new generation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices into the market, according to panelists at an Accellera Systems Initiative breakfast at the Design Automation Conference (DAC 2015) June 9. However, IoT devices for different vertical markets pose very different challenges and requirements, making the standards picture extremely complicated.

The panel was titled “Design and Verification Standards in the Era of IoT.” It was moderated by industry editor John Blyler, CEO of JB Systems Media and Technology. Panelists were as follows, shown left to right in the photo below:

• Lu Dai, director of engineering, Qualcomm
• Wael William Diab, senior director for strategy marketing, industry development and standardization, Huawei
• Chris Rowen, CTO, IP Group, Cadence Design Systems, Inc.

In opening remarks, Blyler recalled a conversation from the recent IEEE International Microwave Symposium in which a panelist pointed to the networking and application layers as the key problem areas for RF and wireless standardization. Similarly, in the IoT space, we need to look “higher up” at the systems level and consider both software and hardware development, Blyler said.

Rowen helped set some context for the discussion by noting three important points about IoT:

• IoT is not a product segment. Vertical product segments such as automotive, medical devices, and home automation all have very different characteristics.
• IoT “devices” are components within a hierarchy of systems that includes sensors, applications, user interface, gateway application (such as cell phone), and finally the cloud, where all data is aggregated.
• A bifurcation is taking place in design. We are going from extreme scale SoCs to “extreme fit” SoCs that are specialized, low energy, and very low cost.

Here are some of the questions and answers that were addressed during the panel discussion.

Q: The claim was recently made that given the level of interaction between sensors and gateways, 50X more verification nodes would have to be checked for IoT. What standards need to be enhanced or changed to accomplish that?

Rowen: That’s a huge number of design dimensions, and the way you attack a problem of that scale is by modularization. You define areas that are protected and encapsulated by standards, and you prove that individual elements will be compliant with that interface. We will see that many interesting problems will be in the software layers.

Q: Why is standardization so important for IoT?

Dai: A company that is trying to make a lot of chips has to deal with a variety of standards. If you have to deal with hundreds of standards, it’s a big bottleneck for bringing your products to market. If you have good standardization within the development process of the IC, that helps time to market.

When I first joined Qualcomm a few years ago, there was no internal verification methodology. When we had a new hire, it took months to ramp up on our internal methodology to become effective. Then came UVM [Universal Verification Methodology], and as UVM became standard, we reduced our ramp-up time tremendously. We’ve seen good engineers ramp up within days.

Diab: When we start to look at standards, we have to do a better job of understanding how they’re all going to play with each other. I don’t think one set of standards can solve the IoT problem. Some standards can grow vertically in markets like industrial, and other standards are getting more horizontal. Security is very important and is probably one thing that goes horizontally.

Requirements for verticals may be different, but processing capability, latency, bandwidth, and messaging capability are common [horizontal] concerns. I think a lot of standards organizations this year will work on horizontal slices [of IoT].

Q: IoT interoperability is important. Any suggestions for getting that done and moving forward?

Rowen: The interoperability problem is that many of these [IoT] devices are wireless. Wireless is interesting because it is really hard – it’s not like a USB plug. Wireless lacks the infrastructure that exists today around wired standards. If we do things in a heavily wireless way, there will be major barriers to overcome.

Dai: There are different standards for 4G LTE technology for different [geographical] markets. We have to make a chip that can work for 20 or 30 wireless technologies, and the cost for that is tremendous. The U.S., Europe, and China all have different tweaks. A good standard that works across the globe would reduce the cost a lot.

Q: If we’re talking about the need to define requirements, a good example to look at is power. Certainly you have UPF [Unified Power Format] for the chip, board, and module.

Rowen: There is certainly a big role for standards about power management. But there is also a domain in which we’re woefully under-equipped, and that is the ability to accurately model the different power usage scenarios at the applications level. Too often power devolves into something that runs over thousands of cycles to confirm that you can switch between power management levels successfully. That’s important, but it tells you very little about how much power your system is going to dissipate.

Dai: There are products that claim to be UPF compliant, but my biggest problem with my most recent chip was still with UPF. These tools are not necessarily 100% UPF compliant.

One other concern I have is that I cannot get one simulator to pass my Verilog code and then go to another that will pass. Even though we have a lot of tools, there is no certification process for a language standard.

Q: When we create a standard, does there need to be a companion compliance test?

Rowen: I think compliance is important. Compliance is being able to prove that you followed what you said you would follow. It also plays into functional safety requirements, where you need to prove you adhered to the flow.

Dai: When we [Qualcomm] sell our 4G chips, we have to go through a lot of certifications. It’s often a differentiating factor.

Q: For IoT you need power management and verification that includes analog. Comments?

Rowen: Small, cheap sensor nodes tend to be very analog-rich, lower scale in terms of digital content, and have lots of software. Part of understanding what’s different about standardization is built on understanding what’s different about the design process, and what does it mean to have a software-rich and analog-rich world.

Dai: Analog is important in this era of IoT. Analog needs to come into the standards community.

Richard Goering

Cadence Blog Posts About DAC 2015

Gary Smith at DAC 2015: How EDA Can Expand Into New Directions

DAC 2015: Google Smart Contact Lens Project Stretches Limits of IC Design

DAC 2015: Lip-Bu Tan, Cadence CEO, Sees Profound Changes in Semiconductors and EDA

DAC 2015: “Level of Compute in Vision Processing Extraordinary” – Chris Rowen

DAC 2015: Can We Build a Virtual Silicon Valley?

DAC 2015: Cadence Vision-Design Presentation Wins Best Paper Honors

Last year, I wrote a blog post entitled Modeling Oscillators with Arbitrary Phase Noise Profiles . We now have an easier way to do this. Starting in MMSIM 13.1 , you can specify the phase noise as an instance parameter in Spectre sources, including...(read more)

Hello,

I am in a need of a skill program to find all instances of a specific cell (Including Mosaics), throughout the hierarchy. The program should print the instance's name, xy coordinates at the top level, and extract a label name that is dropped on top of it. In case there is no label on top of the found instance, the program should print "No Label Found" in the report text file. This program aims to map PADs cells within top level.

I am using the below Cadence's solution to find instances and it works well. The missing feature is to identify LABELs that are on top of the found instances. 

I tried to use dbGetOverlap() function, within the below code, in few setups but it seems to fail to identify the existence of labels on top of the found instances.

For example: 

overlapLabel=dbGetTrueOverlaps(cv cadr(instBox) list("M1" "text"))

I am interested to add to the Cadence's solution below some code in order to identify labels on top of the found instances.

Any tip would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Danny

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

I have a top cell & need to revise all the instances' cellview & export top cell as a new GDS file.

So I write a SKILL code to do so and I find out it will be a little bit slow by using the dbSave to save the cellview of each instance.

Code as below:

let( (topCV subCV )
topCV = dbOpenCellViewByType(newLibName topCellName "layout" "maskLayout" "a")
foreach(inst topCV->instances
subCV = dbOpenCellViewByType(newLibName inst->cellName "layout" "maskLayout" "a")
;;;revise code content
;;;...
;;;revise code content
dbSave(subCV)
dbClose(subCV)
)
dbSave(topCV)
dbClose(topCV)
system(strcat( "strmout -library " newLibName " -topCell " topCellName " -view layout -strmFile " resultFolder "/" topCellName ".gds -techLib " srcLibName " -enableColoring -logFile " topCellName "_strmOut.log" ) )
)

Even if the cell content is not revised, the run time of dbSave will be 2 minutes when there are ~ 1000 instances in topcell. The exported GDS file size is ~2MB.

And the dbSave becomes the bottle neck of the code runtime...

Is there any better way to do such a thing? 

Hi there,

I'm running a transient simulation, and I want to get all instances with model implementation hisim_hv because after that I want to process the data and to adjust some parameters for this kind of devices before dumping the values.

What is the easiest/fastest way to get those instances in skill/ocean?

What I did until now: 

- save the final OP of the simulation and then in skill

openResults()
selectResults('tranOp)
report(?type "hisim_hv" ?param "vgs")

Output seems to be promising, and looks like I can redirect it to a file and after that I have to parse the file.

Is there other simple way? I mean to not save data to file and to parse it.

Eventually having an instance name, is it possible to get the model implementation (hsim_hv, bsim4, etc..)? 

Best Regards,

Marcel

The Accellera Portable Stimulus Working Group met at the DVCon 2018 to move the process forward towards ratification. While we can't predict exactly when it will be ratified, the goal is now more clearly in sight! Cadence booth was busy with a lo...(read more)

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. ]]

The IEEE has announced the publication of the new 1801-2013 standard, also known as UPF 2.1, and immediate availability for free download through the IEEE 1801-2013 Get Program. Even though the standard is new to the whole world, for the people of the IEEE working group this standard is finally done and is in the past now.

There is a Chinese saying "好事多磨" which means "good things take time to happen." I forgot the exact time when I first joined the working group for the new standard -- about two and half years ago -- but I do remember long hours of meetings and many "lively" debates and discussions. Since the "hard time" has passed us, I would like to share some fun facts about the working group and the standard.

• The 1801 working group is the largest entity based ballot group in IEEE-SA history.
• The new standard was initially planned for 2012, but was delayed purely due to the large amount of work required.
• At one point, the group was debating on whether the new standard should be called UPF 2.1 or 3.0. It may sound weird now but we spent quite some time discussing this. Eventually we settled on 2.1 as it was the original plan.
• The 1801-2013 document has 358 pages which is 53% thicker than previous version (the sheer amount of changes in the new standard indicate that this is more than just a normal incremental update of the previous version as suggested by naming it 2.1)
• Around 300 real issues were reported over the previous version and a majority of them were fixed in the new release.
• This is the first release with constructs and semantics coming from Common Power Format (CPF), a sign of convergence of the two industry leading power formats.
• There are about 100 working group meetings in my Outlook calendar since 2011, with meeting times ranging from 2 hours to 8 hours.
• We extensively used Google Drive (which was called Google Docs when the working group started), a great tool for productivity. I cannot imagine how any standard could have been done before Google existed!

Personally, I had an enjoyable journey, especially from having the privilege to work with many industry experts who are all passionate about low power. I do have one more thing to share though. My older daughter went from middle school to high school during the period of the development of the new standard. Since most of the meetings took place in the early morning California time, she had to endure the pain of listening to all these discussions on power domain, power switches, etc. on her way to school.

I asked her if she learned anything. She told me that other than being able to recognize the voices of Erich, John and Joe on the line, she also learned that she would never want to become an electrical or computer engineer! She was so happy that the meetings stopped a couple of months ago. But what I did not tell her is that the meetings will resume after DAC! Well, I am sure this will be a big motivation for her to get her own driving license in the summer.

If you want to get some quick technical insights into the new standard, check out my recent EE Times article IEEE 1801-2013: A bold step towards power format convergence.

Qi Wang

Hello, i need to test the  parameter Kf under some conditions in subthreshold.i cannot just plot the OP param,becasue i need to derive it under certain conditions.

Spectre(of Cadence) like BSIM(of Berkley) has developed a method for deriving each parameter in their model.

Is there a way to help me with such manual where i can test in cadence virtuoso the Kf parameter shown in the formula bellow?

Thanks.

Hello All,

I have a situation where i want to implement 8 instance of some particular reg_file which all have many reg_def and reg_fld.

For example :
I have 8 instance of one DUT module (TEST0, TEST1,TEST2... TEST8), since its all are the instance so all the instance will have the sets of registers.. so to implement reg for one instance i can write code like..

extend vr_ad_reg_file_kind : [TEST0];
extend TEST0 vr_ad_reg_file {
keep size == 256;
};
reg_def EX_REG_TX_DATA TEST0 8’h00 {
// name : type : mask : reset value
reg_fld data : uint(bits:8) : RW : 0;
};

But now the issue is inside 1 instance i have around 256 registers, and i need to implement for all the 8 instance.... so can anyone suggest me how we can make instance for vr_ad_reg_file, otherwise i have to write same code for all the 8 instance.

Thanks