1 Nicaraguan Cordoba Oro = 0.1019 Israeli New Sheqel

Jordan Love has come a long way from the 5-foot-6, 130-pound kid who almost gave up football.

The Players Coalition and dozens of professional athletes sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray requesting an immediate federal investigation into the death of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia.

1 Netherlands Antillean Guilder = 662.8788 Iraqi Dinar

1 Netherlands Antillean Guilder = 2.0282 Qatari Rial

1 Netherlands Antillean Guilder = 1.9534 Israeli New Sheqel

1 Estonian Kroon = 83.4359 Iraqi Dinar

1 Estonian Kroon = 0.2553 Qatari Rial

1 Estonian Kroon = 0.2459 Israeli New Sheqel

1 Danish Krone = 172.9425 Iraqi Dinar

1 Danish Krone = 0.5292 Qatari Rial

1 Danish Krone = 0.5096 Israeli New Sheqel

1 Fiji Dollar = 528.1753 Iraqi Dinar

1 Fiji Dollar = 1.6161 Qatari Rial

1 Fiji Dollar = 1.5564 Israeli New Sheqel

1 New Zealand Dollar = 730.4198 Iraqi Dinar

1 New Zealand Dollar = 2.2349 Qatari Rial

1 New Zealand Dollar = 2.1524 Israeli New Sheqel

1 Croatian Kuna = 171.5046 Iraqi Dinar

1 Croatian Kuna = 0.5248 Qatari Rial

1 Croatian Kuna = 0.5054 Israeli New Sheqel

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 350.0989 Iraqi Dinar

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 1.0712 Qatari Rial

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 1.0317 Israeli New Sheqel

1 Dominican Peso = 21.6205 Iraqi Dinar

1 Dominican Peso = 0.0662 Qatari Rial

1 Dominican Peso = 0.0637 Israeli New Sheqel

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 346.9003 Iraqi Dinar

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 1.0614 Qatari Rial

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 1.0222 Israeli New Sheqel

1 Brunei Dollar = 842.0248 Iraqi Dinar

1 Brunei Dollar = 2.5763 Qatari Rial

1 Brunei Dollar = 2.4813 Israeli New Sheqel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The PCI-SIG finalized the PCIe 4.0 specification with doubling the data to 16GT/s from 8GT/s in PCIe 3.0 in 2017. Products implementing this technology have begun to hit the market in 2019. Earlier this year, AMD announced it X570 chipset would support the PCIe 4.0 interface and Phison also introduced the world’s first PCIe 4.0 SSD.  With the increasing companies are working on PCIe 4.0 related product development, Cadence, as the key and leading PCIe IP solution vendor in the market, has strived for continuous enhancement of its PCIe 4.0 to be the best in the class IP solution. From our initial PCIe 4.0 solution in 4 years ago (revealed in 2015), we have made many advancements and improvements adding features such as Multi-link with any lane assignment, U.2/U.3 connector, and Automotive support. The variety of applications that PCIe4 finds a home in require extensive robustness and reliability testing over and above the compliance tests mandated by the standard body, i.e., PCI-SIG.

PCIe 4.0 TX Eye-Diagram, Loop-back Test (Long-reach) and RX JTOL Margin Test

Cadence IP team has also implemented additional "stress tests" in conjunction to its already comprehensive IP characterization plan, covering electrical, functional, ESD, Latch-up, HTOL, and yield sorting. Take the Receiver Jitter Tolerance Test (JTOL) for instance. JTOL is a key index to test the quality of the receiver of a system. This test use data generator/analyzer to send data to a SerDes receiver which is then looped back through the transmitter back to the instrument. The data received is compared to the data generated and the errors are counted. The data generator introduce jitter into the transmit data pattern to see how well the receiver functions under non-ideal conditions. While PCI-SIG compliance can be obtained on a single lane implementation, real world scenarios require wider implementations under atypical operating conditions. Cadence’s PCIe 4.0 IP was tested against to additional stressed conditions, such as different combination of multi-lanes operations, “temperature drift” conditions, e.g., bring up the chip at room temperature and check the JTOL at high temperature. 

PCIe 4.0 Sub-system Stress Test Setup

Besides complying with electrical parameters and protocol requirements, real world systems have idiosyncrasies of their own. Cadence IP team also built a versatile “System test” setup in house to perform a system level stress test of its PCIe 4.0 sub-system. The Cadence PCIe 4.0 sub-system is connected to a large number of server and desktop motherboards. This set up is tested with 1000s of cycles of repeated stress under varying operating conditions. Stress tests include speed change from 2.5G all the way to 16G and down, link enable/disable, cold boot, warm boot, entering and exiting low power states, and BER test sweeping presets across different channels. Performing this level of stress test verifies that our IP will operate to spec robustly and reliably when presented with the occasional corner cases in the real world.

More Information

For the demonstration of Cadence PCIe4 PHY Receiver Test and Sub-system Stress Test, see the video:

• PCIe 4.0 Sub-system Stress Test
• PCIe 4.0 PHY Receiver JTOL Test

For more information on Cadence's PCIe IP offerings, see our PCI Express page.

For more information on PCIe in general, and on the various PCI standards, see the PCI-SIG website.

Related Posts

• Blog: PCIe Gen4: It’s Official, We’re Compliant
• Blog: PCIe 3.0 Still Shines While PCIe Keeps Evolving
• Blog: The PCIe 4.0 Era Continues at PCI-SIG Developers Conference 2016

This is the 16th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Steven Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now, relates an old Russian joke about two peasants named Boris and Igor. They are both poor. Boris has a goat. Igor does not. One day, Igor is granted a wish by a visiting fairy. What will he wish for?

“I wish,” he says, “that Boris’s goat should die.”

The joke ends there, revealing as much about human nature as about economics. Consider the three things that happen if the fairy grants the wish. One, Boris becomes poorer. Two, Igor stays poor. Three, inequality reduces. Is any of them a good outcome?

I feel exasperated when I hear intellectuals and columnists talking about economic inequality. It is my contention that India’s problem is poverty – and that poverty and inequality are two very different things that often do not coincide.

To illustrate this, I sometimes ask this question: In which of the following countries would you rather be poor: USA or Bangladesh? The obvious answer is USA, where the poor are much better off than the poor of Bangladesh. And yet, while Bangladesh has greater poverty, the USA has higher inequality.

Indeed, take a look at the countries of the world measured by the Gini Index, which is that standard metric used to measure inequality, and you will find that USA, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United Kingdom all have greater inequality than Bangladesh, Liberia, Pakistan and Sierra Leone, which are much poorer. And yet, while the poor of Bangladesh would love to migrate to unequal USA, I don’t hear of too many people wishing to go in the opposite direction.

Indeed, people vote with their feet when it comes to choosing between poverty and inequality. All of human history is a story of migration from rural areas to cities – which have greater inequality.

If poverty and inequality are so different, why do people conflate the two? A key reason is that we tend to think of the world in zero-sum ways. For someone to win, someone else must lose. If the rich get richer, the poor must be getting poorer, and the presence of poverty must be proof of inequality.

But that’s not how the world works. The pie is not fixed. Economic growth is a positive-sum game and leads to an expansion of the pie, and everybody benefits. In absolute terms, the rich get richer, and so do the poor, often enough to come out of poverty. And so, in any growing economy, as poverty reduces, inequality tends to increase. (This is counter-intuitive, I know, so used are we to zero-sum thinking.) This is exactly what has happened in India since we liberalised parts of our economy in 1991.

Most people who complain about inequality in India are using the wrong word, and are really worried about poverty. Put a millionaire in a room with a billionaire, and no one will complain about the inequality in that room. But put a starving beggar in there, and the situation is morally objectionable. It is the poverty that makes it a problem, not the inequality.

You might think that this is just semantics, but words matter. Poverty and inequality are different phenomena with opposite solutions. You can solve for inequality by making everyone equally poor. Or you could solve for it by redistributing from the rich to the poor, as if the pie was fixed. The problem with this, as any economist will tell you, is that there is a trade-off between redistribution and growth. All redistribution comes at the cost of growing the pie – and only growth can solve the problem of poverty in a country like ours.

It has been estimated that in India, for every one percent rise in GDP, two million people come out of poverty. That is a stunning statistic. When millions of Indians don’t have enough money to eat properly or sleep with a roof over their heads, it is our moral imperative to help them rise out of poverty. The policies that will make this possible – allowing free markets, incentivising investment and job creation, removing state oppression – are likely to lead to greater inequality. So what? It is more urgent to make sure that every Indian has enough to fulfil his basic needs – what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, in his fine book On Inequality, called the Doctrine of Sufficiency.

The elite in their airconditioned drawing rooms, and those who live in rich countries, can follow the fashions of the West and talk compassionately about inequality. India does not have that luxury.

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

I have completed physical design of a block in innovus. I want to extract rc of that block using quantus .  It will be very helpful if you give step by step procedure and command to run quantus to extract rc of that block.

For a netlist vs. netlist LEC flow we have to solve the following problem:

- in the RTL code we replicate a large array of N x M all-identical hard-macros, let call them MACRO_A

- MACRO_A is pre-assembled in Innovus and contains digital parts and analog parts (bottom-up hierarchical flow)

- at top-level (full-chip) we instantiate this array of all-identical macros

- in the top-level place-and-route flow we perform ecoChangeCell to remaster the top row of this array with MACRO_B

- MACRO_B is just a copy of the original MACRO_A cell containing same pins position, same internal digital functionality and also same digital layout, only slight differences in one analog block inside the macro

- MACRO_A and MACRO_B have the same .lib file generated with the do_extract_model command at the end of the Innovus flow, they only differ in the name of the macro

- when performing post-synthesis netlist vs post-place-and-route we load .lib files of both macros in Conformal LEC

- the LEC flow fails because Conformal LEC sees only MACRO_A instantiated in the post-synthesis netlist and both MACRO_A and MACRO_B in the post-palce-and-route netlist

Since both digital functionality and STD cells layout are the same between MACRO_A and MACRO_B we don't want to keep track of this difference already at RTL stage, we just want to perform this ECO change in place-and-route and force Conformal to assume equivalence between MACRO_A and MACRO_B .

Basically what I'm searching for is something similar to the add_instance_equivalences Conformal command but that works between Golden and Revised designs on cell primitives/black-boxes .

Is this flow supported ?

Thanks in advance

Luca

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)

There’s nothing like the heat of a DAC demo to stress new technology and the engineers behind it! Such was the case at DAC 2018 at the new locale of Moscone Center West, San Francisco. Cadence and AMIQ were two of several vendors who announced ...(read more)

Hi, I want to add values to components in my SiP design such as 1nF or 15nH. There is already in existence a COMP_VALUE property reserved for this as shown during BOM generation. This property is not visible under the Edit/Properties dialog for component or symbol find filters. We have already created user properties called COMP_MFG and COMP_MFG_PN that it editable at a component level. When we try to add COMP_VALUE it is reported as a reserved name in Cadence but this name is not listed in the properties dialog. Is there a way to turn on the visibility and editablility of this or other hidden reserved Cadence property names? How can I assign a string value to the COMP_VALUE property?

Thanks

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. ]]

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)

Hello,

Would anyone know how to setup a PSS or QPSS simulation with 25% dutycycle clock sources or if such a thing is possible with QPSS.

Fig1 (below) is a snapshot of the circuit I am trying to characterize. This has 4 clock ports each with 25%duty cycle in the ON state. Fig2 below shows two of these clocks.

Each path in the circuit consists of two switches with a low pass RC sandwiched in between. The Input is a 50Ohm port sine wave and the output is a 1K resistor. The output nets of all paths are connected together.

I am trying to determine the swept frequency response from input to output (voltage) when the input is from 500Mhz to  510MHz. The Period (T=1/Fp) of each of the pulses is such that Fp=500MHz. The first pulse source has a delay=0, second has delay=T/4, third delay=2T/4, etc...

I am currently getting it working and seeing the correct result (bandpass response) with Transient but the problem is doing a dft at 500MHz with 10KHz spacings needs at least 100us and takes up a lot of time and disk space.

Many Thanks,
Chris.

Fig1

Fig2

Hello, i have made a power gain circle for 30dB,for setting a GAIN we need to set a matching network for input and output inpedance.

but in this Gain circles it shows me only one complex number instead of two.(As shown bellow)

Where did i go wrong with using it to find the input and output impedancies needed to be matched in order to have 30dB gain?
Thanks.

Hello, There is a manual in matlab of matching LNA  shown in the link bellow.

In it as shown in the plot bellow they mention input and output circle plots.

Is there such option of input and output circle in cadence virtuoso?

https://www.mathworks.com/help/rf/examples/designing-matching-networks-part-1-networks-with-an-lna-and-lumped-elements.html

Hi Guys,

Anyone know equivalent skill for create detail.

Eugene