1 Maldivian Rufiyaa = 39.0229 CFA Franc BCEAO

1 Maldivian Rufiyaa = 0.0626 Swiss Franc

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 139.5926 CFA Franc BCEAO

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 0.224 Swiss Franc

1 Nicaraguan Cordoba Oro = 17.5853 CFA Franc BCEAO

1 Nicaraguan Cordoba Oro = 0.0282 Swiss Franc

1 Netherlands Antillean Guilder = 337.0098 CFA Franc BCEAO

1 Netherlands Antillean Guilder = 0.5409 Swiss Franc

1 Estonian Kroon = 42.4191 CFA Franc BCEAO

1 Estonian Kroon = 0.0681 Swiss Franc

1 Danish Krone = 87.9245 CFA Franc BCEAO

1 Danish Krone = 0.1411 Swiss Franc

1 Fiji Dollar = 268.5261 CFA Franc BCEAO

1 Fiji Dollar = 0.431 Swiss Franc

1 New Zealand Dollar = 371.3479 CFA Franc BCEAO

1 New Zealand Dollar = 0.596 Swiss Franc

1 Croatian Kuna = 87.1935 CFA Franc BCEAO

1 Croatian Kuna = 0.1399 Swiss Franc

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 177.9914 CFA Franc BCEAO

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 0.2857 Swiss Franc

1 Dominican Peso = 10.9919 CFA Franc BCEAO

1 Dominican Peso = 0.0176 Swiss Franc

Christina Belone, Talisa Budder and Matt Woody compete in the 85^th edition of the annual event

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 176.3653 CFA Franc BCEAO

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 0.2831 Swiss Franc

1 Brunei Dollar = 428.0882 CFA Franc BCEAO

1 Brunei Dollar = 0.6871 Swiss Franc

With more and more SoCs employing sophisticated interconnect IP to link multiple processor cores, caches, memories, and dozens of other IP functions, the designs are enabling a new generation of low-power servers and high-performance mobile devices. The complexity of the interconnects and their advanced configurability contributes to already formidable design and verification challenges which lead to the following questions:

While your interconnect subsystem might have a correct functionality, are you starving your IP functions of the bandwidth they need? Are requests from latency-critical initiators processed on time? How can you ensure that all applications will receive the desired bandwidth in steady-state and corner use-cases?

To answer these questions, Cadence recommends the Performance Verification Methodology to ensure that the system performance meets requirements at the different levels:

1. Performance characterization: The first level of verification aims to verify the path-to-path traffic measuring the performance envelope. It targets integration bugs like clock frequency, buffer sizes, and bridge configuration. It requires to analyze the latency and bandwidth of design’s critical paths.
2. Steady state workloads: The second level of verification aims to verify the master-by-master defined loads using traffic profiles. It identifies the impact on bandwidth when running multi-master traffic with various Quality-of-Service (QoS) settings. It analyzes the DDR sub-system’s efficiency, measures bandwidth and checks whether masters’ QoS requirements are met.
3. Application specific use cases: The last level of verification simulates the use-cases and reaches the application performance corner cases. It analyzes the master-requested bandwidth as well as the DDR sub-system’s efficiency and bandwidth.

Cadence has developed a set of tools to assist customers in performance validation of their SoCs. Cadence Interconnect Workbench simplifies the setup and measurement of performance and verification testbenches and makes debugging of complex system behaviors a snap. The solution works with Cadence Verification IPs and executes on the Cadence Xcelium® Enterprise Simulator or Cadence Palladium® Accellerator/Emulator, with coverage results collected and analyzed in the Cadence vManager  Metric-Driven Signoff Platform.

To verify the performance of the Steady State Workloads, Arm has just released a new AMBA Adaptive Traffic Profile (ATP) specification which describes AMBA abstract traffic attributes and defines the behavior of the different traffic profiles in the system.

With the availability of Cadence Interconnect Workbench and AMBA VIP support of ATP, early adopters of the AMBA ATP specification can begin working immediately, ensuring compliance with the standard, and achieving the fastest path to SoC performance verification closure.

For more information on the AMBA Adaptive Traffic Profile, you can visit Dimitry's blog on AMBA Adaptive Traffic Profiles: Addressing The Challenge. 

More information on Cadence Interconnect Workbench solution is available at Cadence Interconnect Solution webpage.

Thierry

Test chips are becoming more widespread and more complex at advanced process nodes as design teams utilize early silicon to diagnose problems prior to production. But this approach also is spurring questions about whether this approach is viable at 7nm and 5nm, due to the rising cost of prototyping advanced technology, such as mask tooling and wafer costs.

Semiconductor designers have long been making test chips to validate test structures, memory bit cells, larger memory blocks, and precision analog circuits like current mirrors, PLLs, temperature sensors, and high-speed I/Os. This has been done at 90nm, 65nm, 40nm, 32nm, 28nm, etc., so having test chips at 16nm, 7nm, or finer geometries should not be a surprise. Still, as costs rise, there is debate about whether those chips are over-used given advancements in tooling, or whether they should be utilized even more, with more advanced diagnostics built into them.

Modern EDA tools are very good. You can simulate and validate almost anything with certain degree of accuracy and correctness. The key to having good and accurate tools and accurate results (for simulation) is the quality of the foundry data provided. The key to having good designs (layouts) is that the DRC deck must be of high quality and accurate and must catch all the things you are not supposed to do in the layout. Most of the challenges in advanced node is in the FEOL where semiconductor physics and lithography play outsize roles. Issues that were not an issue at more mature nodes can manifest themselves as big problems at 7nm or 5nm. Process variation across the wafer and variation across a large die also present problems that were of no consequence in more mature nodes.

The real questions to be asked are as follows:

What is the role of test chips in SoC designs?

1. Do all hard IP require test chips for validation?
2. Are test chips more important at advanced nodes compared to more mature nodes?
3. Is the importance of test chip validation relative to the type of IP protocols?
4. What are the risks if I do not validate in silicon?

In complex SoC designs, there are many high-performance protocols such as LPDDR4/4x PHY, PCIe4 PHY, USB3.0 PHY, 56G/112G SerDes, etc. Each one of these IP are very complex in and by itself. If there is any chance of failure that is not detected prior to SoC (tapeout) integration, the cost of retrofit is huge. This is why the common practice is to validate each one of these complex IP in silicon before committing to use such IP in chip integration. The test chips are used to validate that the IP are properly designed and meet the functional specifications of the protocols. They are also used to validate if sufficient margins are designed into the IP to mitigate variances due to process tolerances. All high-performance hard IP go through this test chip/silicon validation process. Oftentimes, marginality is detected at this stage. In advanced nodes, it is also important to have the test chips built under different process corners. This is intended to simulate process variations in production wafers so as to maximize yields. Advanced protocols such as 112G, GDDR6, HBM2, and PCIe4 are incredibly complex and sensitive to process variations. It is almost impossible to design these circuits and try to guarantee their performance without going through the test chip route.

Besides validating performance of the IP protocols, test silicon is also used to validate robustness of ESD structures, sensitivity to latch up, and performance degradation over wide temperature ranges. All these items are more critical in advanced nodes than more mature modes. Test chips are vehicles to guarantee design integrity in bite-size chunks. It is better to deal with any potential issues in smaller blocks than to try to fix them in the final integrated SoC.

Test chips will continue to play a vital role in helping IP and SoC teams lower the risk of their designs, and assuring optimal quality and performance in the foreseeable future. They are not going away!

To read more, please visit https://semiengineering.com/test-chips-play-larger-role-at-advanced-nodes/

Hi Folks, A question that I've often received from designers, "Is there a method to determine the amount of memory required before I submit a job? I use distributed processing and need to provide an estimate before submitting jobs." The answer...(read more)

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

It’s been quite a long 5-year journey building and deploying Performance Analysis, Verification, and Debug capabilities for Arm-based SoCs. We worked with some of the smartest engineers on the planet. First with the engineers at Arm, with whom we...(read more)

Have you ever manufactured a printed circuit board (PCB) without analyzing all the routed signal traces? Most designers will say “yes, all the time.” Trace widths and spacing are set by constraints,...

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

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 Plus layout tools allowing you to work...

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

Have you ever manufactured a printed circuit board (PCB) without analyzing all the routed signal traces? Most designers will say “yes, all the time.” Trace widths and spacing are set by constraints, and many designers simply don’t h...(read more)

Hi,
I am new to the circuit design and troubleshooting. My project is to design a trans-impedance amplifier using Cadence that can amplify a signal coming from a photodiode. I started out with the regulated cascode configuration as shown in the circuit below. I look at the frequency response using AC simulation and it looks like a high pass (/net 5). The results doesn ot show any gain (transient response), or expected low-pass roll-off in the AC response.

First thing, I looked into the operating regions of the MOSFETs and adjusted the input dc voltage of the Vsin to 0.5 to make sure that the T0, T1 mosfets are in saturation(checked this with the print->dc operating points). Beyond this point, I am not sure on how to proceed and interpret the results to make changes. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

-Rakesh.

Hello, I am trying to use two inductors in my LNA as shown bellow to have a S-PARAM response so i will have S11 with lowerst possible values and tweak them for matching network. However when i ran EXPLORER live tuning with SParam as shown bellow i get no change in the response.

I know that Cgs and Cgd with the inductors having a resonance so by Varying L value i should have seen the change in resonance location,

But there is no change.Where did i go wrong?

Thanks. 

hi everyone, 

i'm trying to create a netlist for aging simulation. i would like to simulate how power, Gain and PAE (efficiency) are inlfuenced after 3 hours

i would be grateful if someone can correct my syntax in the netlist since i'm trying to make a sweep HB  simulation where the input power is the parameter.

i did it without any error for the sp (S parameters)  simulation.

you can see the images for both sp and hb simulation netlists. (from left to right: sp aging netlist; hb aging netlist)

i will be grateful if someone can provide me some syntax advices.

thanks,

best regards

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)

Hello all,

We are designing a backplane and in the design we are using some custom prefixes using the Advance Annotation tool. When annotating the occurances I get the following error:

ERROR(ORDBDLL-1224): The total number of components for prefix J0C exceeds the range supplied for it.
Increase the End value of the range.

Thanks in advance for the help

--Tom

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

Try looking at www.solidwoodkitchen.co.uk. They have some amazing designs and prices.

Kitchen Design Manchester

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

Verification is the top challenge in mixed-signal design. Bringing analog and digital domains together into unified verification planning, simulating, and debugging is a challenging task for rapidly increasing size and complexity of mixed-signal designs. To more completely verify functionality and performance of a mixed-signal SoC and its AMS IP blocks used to build it, verification teams use simulations at transistor, analog behavioral and real-number model (RNM) and RTL levels, and combination of these.

In recent years, RNM and simulation is being adopted for functional verification by many, due to advantages it offers including simpler modeling requirements and much faster simulation speed (compared to a traditional analog behavioral models like Verilog-A or VHDL-AMS). Verilog-AMS with its wreal continue to be popular choice. Standardization of real number extensions in SystemVerilog (SV) made SV-RNM an even more attractive choice for MS SoC verification.

Verilog-AMS/wreal is scalar real type. SV-RNM offers a powerful ability to define complex data types, providing a user-defined structure (record) to describe the net value. In a typical design, most analog nodes can be modeled using a single value for passing a voltage (or current) from one module to another. The ability to pass multiple values over a net can be very powerful when, for example, the impedance load impact on an analog signal needs to be modeled. Here is an example of a user-defined net (UDN) structure that holds voltage, current, and resistance values:

When there are multiple drives on a single net, the simulator will need a resolution function to determine the final net value. When the net is just defined as a single real value, common resolution functions such as min, max, average, and sum are built into the simulator.  But definition of more complex structures for the net also requires the user to provide appropriate resolution functions for them. Here is an example of a net with three drivers modeled using the above defined structural elements (a voltage source with series resistance, a resistive load, and a current source):

To properly solve for the resulting output voltage, the resolution function for this net needs to perform Norton conversion of the elements, sum their currents and conductances, and then calculate the resolved output voltage as the sum of currents divided by sum of conductances.

With some basic understanding of circuit theory, engineers can use SV-RNM UDN capability to model electrical behavior of many different circuits. While it is primarily defined to describe source/load impedance interactions, its use can be extended to include systems including capacitors, switching circuits, RC interconnect, charge pumps, power regulators, and others. Although this approach extends the scope of functional verification, it is not a replacement for transistor-level simulation when accuracy, performance verification, or silicon correlation are required:  It simply provides an efficient solution for discretely modeling small analog networks (one to several nodes).  Mixed-signal simulation with an analog solver is still the best solution when large nonlinear networks must be evaluated.

Cadence provides a tutorial on EEnet usage as well as the package (EEnet.pkg) with UDN definitions and resolution functions and modeling examples. To learn more, please login to your Cadence account to access the tutorial.

Crime Branch : ક્યાંક ગાડીઓ ની ચોરી તો ક્યાંક અપહરણ, તો ક્યાંક ફેસબૂક પાર કોઈ છેતરાયું