hi,

     I save the waveform file of the oscilloscope as CSV file format.

     Now, I need to use this waveform file as the source of the low-pass filter .

     I searched and read the PSPICE help documents, and did not find any  methods. 

     How to realize it?

     Are there any reference documents or examples?

     Thanks!

Is there a way to generate coverage reports, not in ucd or any other format. I have written basic covergroup and passed arguments[-covoverwrite -cov_cgsample -cov_debuglog -coverage u] to the xrun command, however I don't see anything in sim directory, nor do I see anything in the logs indicating the covergroups have been hit. How can I confirm that cover groups are getting hit and essentially observe the bins. In Questa sim, you essentially get them as part of the log itself.

Hello,

I'm reading the Design specification for IP6514E.

We will use the DAC mode.

It would seem to be very simple but I don't see any code sequence, i.e.

  1.Write 03(Basic Read) to this register

  2, Write start adress to this register

  3. Write "execute" to this register

  4. Read the data from this register

Thanks,

Stefan

Hello,

I am new in formal verification and I have a concept question about how to verify an I2C Slave block.

I think the response should be valid for any serial interface which needs to receive information for several clocks before making an action.

The the protocol description is the following: 

I have a serial clock (SCL), Serial Data Input (SDI) and Serial Data Output (SDO), all are ports of the I2C Slave block.

The protocol looks like this:

The first byte which is received by the slave consists in 7bits of sensor address and the 8th bit is the command 0/1 Write/Read.

After the first 8 bits, the slave sends an ACK (SDO = 1 for 1 clock) if the sensor address is correct.

Lets consider only this case, where I want to verify that the slave responds with an ACK if the sensor address is correct.

The only solution I found so far was to use the internal buffer from the block which saves the received bits during 8 clocks. The signal is called shift_s.

I also needed to use internal chip state (state_s) and an internal counter (shift_count_s).

Instead of doing an direct check of the SDO(sdo_o) depending on SDI (sdi_d_i), I used the internal shift_s register.

My question is if my approach is the correct one or there is a possibility to write the verification at a blackbox level.

Below you have the 2 properties: first checks connection from SDI to internal buffer, the second checks the connection between internal buffer and output.

property prop_i2c_sdi_store;
  @(posedge sclk_n_i)
  $past(i2c_bl.state_s == `STATE_RECEIVE_I2C_ADDR)
    |-> i2c_bl.shift_s == byte'({ $past(i2c_bl.shift_s), $past(sdi_d_i)});
endproperty
APF_I2C_CHECK_SDI_STORE: assert property(prop_i2c_sdi_store);

property prop_i2c_sensor_addr(sens_addr_sel, sens_addr);
@(posedge sclk_n_i) (i2c_bl.state_s == `STATE_RECEIVE_I2C_ADDR) && (i2c_addr_i == sens_addr_sel) && (i2c_bl.shift_count_s == 7)
  ##1 (i2c_bl.shift_s inside {sens_addr, sens_addr+1}) |-> sdo_o;
endproperty
APF_I2C_CHECK_SENSOR_ADDR0: assert property(prop_i2c_sensor_addr(0, `I2C_SENSOR_ADDRESS_A0));
APF_I2C_CHECK_SENSOR_ADDR1: assert property(prop_i2c_sensor_addr(1, `I2C_SENSOR_ADDRESS_A1));
APF_I2C_CHECK_SENSOR_ADDR2: assert property(prop_i2c_sensor_addr(2, `I2C_SENSOR_ADDRESS_A2));
APF_I2C_CHECK_SENSOR_ADDR3: assert property(prop_i2c_sensor_addr(3, `I2C_SENSOR_ADDRESS_A3));

PS: i2c_addr_i is address selection for the slave (there are 4 configurable sensor addresses, but this is not important for the case).

Thank you!

Hello everyone. In recent days, I'm having a weird problem with sound output on my Windows 10 PC. In fact, I can't control the loudness of it. So is there any possibility of PCB of sound card being damaged?

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.

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

This is the 17th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

One of my favourite English words comes from chess. If it is your turn to move, but any move you make makes your position worse, you are in ‘Zugzwang’. Narendra Modi was in zugzwang after the Pulwama attacks a few days ago—as any Indian prime minister in his place would have been.

An Indian PM, after an attack for which Pakistan is held responsible, has only unsavoury choices in front of him. He is pulled in two opposite directions. One, strategy dictates that he must not escalate. Two, politics dictates that he must.

Let’s unpack that. First, consider the strategic imperatives. Ever since both India and Pakistan became nuclear powers, a conventional war has become next to impossible because of the threat of a nuclear war. If India escalates beyond a point, Pakistan might bring their nuclear weapons into play. Even a limited nuclear war could cause millions of casualties and devastate our economy. Thus, no matter what the provocation, India needs to calibrate its response so that the Pakistan doesn’t take it all the way.

It’s impossible to predict what actions Pakistan might view as sufficient provocation, so India has tended to play it safe. Don’t capture territory, don’t attack military assets, don’t kill civilians. In other words, surgical strikes on alleged terrorist camps is the most we can do.

Given that Pakistan knows that it is irrational for India to react, and our leaders tend to be rational, they can ‘bleed us with a thousand cuts’, as their doctrine states, with impunity. Both in 2001, when our parliament was attacked and the BJP’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee was PM, and in 2008, when Mumbai was attacked and the Congress’s Manmohan Singh was PM, our leaders considered all the options on the table—but were forced to do nothing.

But is doing nothing an option in an election year?

Leave strategy aside and turn to politics. India has been attacked. Forty soldiers have been killed, and the nation is traumatised and baying for blood. It is now politically impossible to not retaliate—especially for a PM who has criticized his predecessor for being weak, and portrayed himself as a 56-inch-chested man of action.

I have no doubt that Modi is a rational man, and knows the possible consequences of escalation. But he also knows the possible consequences of not escalating—he could dilute his brand and lose the elections. Thus, he is forced to act. And after he acts, his Pakistan counterpart will face the same domestic pressure to retaliate, and will have to attack back. And so on till my home in Versova is swallowed up by a nuclear crater, right?

Well, not exactly. There is a way to resolve this paradox. India and Pakistan can both escalate, not via military actions, but via optics.

Modi and Imran Khan, who you’d expect to feel like the loneliest men on earth right now, can find sweet company in each other. Their incentives are aligned. Neither man wants this to turn into a full-fledged war. Both men want to appear macho in front of their domestic constituencies. Both men are masters at building narratives, and have a pliant media that will help them.

Thus, India can carry out a surgical strike and claim it destroyed a camp, killed terrorists, and forced Pakistan to return a braveheart prisoner of war. Pakistan can say India merely destroyed two trees plus a rock, and claim the high moral ground by returning the prisoner after giving him good masala tea. A benign military equilibrium is maintained, and both men come out looking like strong leaders: a win-win game for the PMs that avoids a lose-lose game for their nations. They can give themselves a high-five in private when they meet next, and Imran can whisper to Modi, “You’re a good spinner, bro.”

There is one problem here, though: what if the optics don’t work?

If Modi feels that his public is too sceptical and he needs to do more, he might feel forced to resort to actual military escalation. The fog of politics might obscure the possible consequences. If the resultant Indian military action causes serious damage, Pakistan will have to respond in kind. In the chain of events that then begins, with body bags piling up, neither man may be able to back down. They could end up as prisoners of circumstance—and so could we.

***

Also check out:

Why Modi Must Learn to Play the Game of Chicken With Pakistan—Amit Varma
The Two Pakistans—Episode 79 of The Seen and the Unseen
India in the Nuclear Age—Episode 80 of The Seen and the Unseen

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

This is the 18th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

The man who gave us our national anthem, Rabindranath Tagore, once wrote that nationalism was “a great menace.” He went on to say, “It is the particular thing which for years has been at the bottom of India’s troubles.”

Not just India’s, but the world’s: In his book The Open Society and its Enemies, published in 1945 as Adolf Hitler was defeated, Karl Popper ripped into nationalism, with all its “appeals to our tribal instincts, to passion and to prejudice, and to our nostalgic desire to be relieved from the strain of individual responsibility which it attempts to replace by a collective or group responsibility.”

Nationalism is resurgent today, stomping across the globe hand-in-hand with populism. In India, too, it is tearing us apart. But must nationalism always be a bad thing? A provocative new book by the Israeli thinker Yael Tamir argues otherwise.

In her book Why Nationalism, Tamir makes the following arguments. One, nation-states are here to stay. Two, the state needs the nation to be viable. Three, people need nationalism for the sense of community and belonging it gives them. Four, therefore, we need to build a better nationalism, which brings people together instead of driving them apart.

The first point needs no elaboration. We are a globalised world, but we are also trapped by geography and circumstance. “Only 3.3 percent of the world’s population,” Tamir points out, “lives outside their country of birth.” Nutopia, the borderless state dreamed up by John Lennon and Yoko Ono, is not happening anytime soon.

If the only thing that citizens of a state have in common is geographical circumstance, it is not enough. If the state is a necessary construct, a nation is its necessary justification. “Political institutions crave to form long-term political bonding,” writes Tamir, “and for that matter they must create a community that is neither momentary nor meaningless.” Nationalism, she says, “endows the state with intimate feelings linking the past, the present, and the future.”

More pertinently, Tamir argues, people need nationalism. I am a humanist with a belief in individual rights, but Tamir says that this is not enough. “The term ‘human’ is a far too thin mode of delineation,” she writes. “Individuals need to rely on ‘thick identities’ to make their lives meaningful.” This involves a shared past, a common culture and distinctive values.

Tamir also points out that there is a “strong correlation between social class and political preferences.” The privileged elites can afford to be globalists, but those less well off are inevitably drawn to other narratives that enrich their lives. “Rather than seeing nationalism as the last refuge of the scoundrel,” writes Tamir, “we should start thinking of nationalism as the last hope of the needy.”

Tamir’s book bases its arguments on the West, but the argument holds in India as well. In a country with so much poverty, is it any wonder that nationalism is on the rise? The cosmopolitan, globe-trotting elites don’t have daily realities to escape, but how are those less fortunate to find meaning in their lives?

I have one question, though. Why is our nationalism so exclusionary when our nation is so inclusive?

In the nationalism that our ruling party promotes, there are some communities who belong here, and others who don’t. (And even among those who ‘belong’, they exploit divisions.) In their us-vs-them vision of the world, some religions are foreign, some values are foreign, even some culinary traditions are foreign – and therefore frowned upon. But the India I know and love is just the opposite of that.

We embrace influences from all over. Our language, our food, our clothes, our music, our cinema have absorbed so many diverse influences that to pretend they come from a single legit source is absurd. (Even the elegant churidar-kurtas our prime minister wears have an Islamic origin.) As an example, take the recent film Gully Boy: its style of music, the clothes its protagonists wear, even the attitudes in the film would have seemed alien to us a few decades ago. And yet, could there be a truer portrait of young India?

This inclusiveness, this joyous khichdi that we are, is what makes our nation a model for the rest of the world. No nation embraces all other nations as ours does. My India celebrates differences, and I do as well. I wear my kurta with jeans, I listen to ghazals, I eat dhansak and kababs, and I dream in the Indian language called English. This is my nationalism.

Those who try to divide us, therefore, are the true anti-nationals. We must reclaim nationalism from them.

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.

Read on to know about the Operating Point Parameters Summary window that gives you a one-stop view of the categorized and tabulated details on all operating point parameters in your design. This window improves your review cycle with its many benefits.(read more)

During a mixed-signal simulation, the analog engine usually dominates the simulation time and resources. If you need to run only the analog engine in several windows, or if you would like to to run multiple tests of the same circuit with different stimuli or test pattern, then you need to run the simulation multiple times. View this blog to know more about the the two advanced technologies that Spectre AMS Designer provides to help you improve the efficiency of your mixed-signal designs and to increase the simulation speed.(read more)

Read this blog to know how you can easily create and insert connect modules using Spectre AMS Designer with the Verilog-AMS standard language defined by Accellera. (read more)

Have you ever wanted to write a DRC rule deck to check for space or width constraints on polygons? Or have you wondered how the multiple lines of an LVS rule deck extract and conduct a comparison between the schematic and layout? Maybe you've been curious about the role of rule deck writers in creating high-quality designs ready for tape-out.

If any of these questions interest you, there is good news: the latest version (v23.1) of the Physical Verification Rules Writer (PVLRW) course is designed to teach you rule deck writing. This free 16-hour online course includes audio and labs designed to make your learning experience comfortable and flexible. Whether you are new to the concept or an experienced CAD/PDK engineer, the course is structured to enhance your rule deck writing skills.

The PVLRW course covers six core modules: Layer Processing, DRC Rules, Layout Extraction, ERC and LVS Rules, Schematic Netlisting, and Coloring Rules. There are also three optional appendix sections. Each module explains relevant rules with syntax, concepts, graphics, examples, and case studies.

This course is based on tool versions PEGASUS231 and Virtuoso Studio IC231.

Pegasus Input and Output

Pegasus is a cloud-ready physical verification signoff solution that enables engineers to support faster delivery of advanced-node integrated circuits (ICs) to market.

Pegasus requires input data in the form of layout geometry, schematic netlists, and rules that direct the tool operation. The rules fall into two categories: those that describe the fabrication process and those that control the job-specific operation.

Pegasus provides log and report files, netlists, databases, and error databases as output.

Overview of Pegasus Rule File

The rule decks written in Physical Verification Language (PVL) work for the Cadence PV signoff tools Pegasus and PVS (Physical Verification System).   

The PVL rules are placed in a file that gets selected in a run from the GUI or the command line, as the user directs. PVL rules may be on separate lines within the file and can also be contained in named rule blocks.

Each line of code starts with a PVL rule that uses prefix type notation. It consists of a keyword followed by options, input layer or variable names, and output layer or variable names.

A rule block has the format of the keyword rule, followed by a rule name you wish to give it, followed by an opening curly brace. You enter the rules you wish to perform, followed by a closing curly brace on the last separate line.

  Sample Rule deck with individual lines of code and rule blocks.

DRC Rules

The first step in a typical Pegasus flow is a Design Rule Check (DRC), which verifies that layout geometries conform to the minimum width, spacing, and other fabrication process rules required by an IC foundry. Each foundry specifies its own process-dependent rules that must be met by the layout design.

There are three types of DRC rules: layer definition rules, layer derivation rules, and DRC design check rules. Layer definition rules identify the layers contained in the input layout database, and layer derivation rules derive additional layers from the original input layers, allowing the tool to test the design against specific foundry requirements using the design check rules.

A sample DRC Rule deck

A layout view displaying the DRC violations

LVS Rules

The Pegasus Layout Versus Schematic (LVS) tool compares the layout netlist with the schematic netlist to check for discrepancies.

There are two essential LVS rule sets: LVS extraction rules and comparison rules. LVS extraction rules help extract drawn devices and connectivity information from the input layout geometry data and outputs into a layout netlist. The LVS extraction rule set also includes the layer definition, derivation, extraction, connectivity, and net listing rules.

LVS comparison rules are associated with comparing the extracted layout netlist to a schematic netlist.

A sample LVS Rule deck. 

TCL, Macros, and Conditional commands

Tcl is supported and used in various Pegasus functionalities, such as Pegasus rule files and Pegasus configurator. Macros are functional templates that are defined once and can be used multiple times in a rule file. Conditional Commands are used to process or skip specific commands in the rule file.

Do You Have Access to the Cadence Support Portal?

If not, follow the steps below to create your account.

• On the Cadence Support portal, select Register Now and provide the requested information on the Registration page.
• You will need an email address and host ID to sign up.
• If you need help with registration, contact support@cadence.com.

To stay up to date with the latest news and information about Cadence training and webinars, subscribe to the Cadence Training emails.

If you have questions about courses, schedules, online, public, or live onsite training, reach out to us at Cadence Training.

For any questions, general feedback, or future blog topic suggestions, please leave a comment.

Related Resources

About Knowledge Booster Training Bytes

Knowledge Booster Training Bytes is an online journal that relays information about Cadence Training videos, online courses, and upcoming webinars in the Learning section of the Cadence Learning and Support portal. This blog category brings you direct links to these videos, courses, and other related material on a regular basis. Subscribe to receive email notifications about our latest Custom IC Design blog posts.

Read this blog to know more about the innovation behind Universal Connect Modules (UCM).(read more)

1， Some components in the installation package cannot choose to install; even if they do not choose them, they will still be installed; just less shortcut icons, the documents are still released to the installation directory.

2， "Catia Application Frame" repeat the problem?
       “x:CadenceSPB_17.4 oolsin“
       ”x:CadenceSPB_17.4 oolsspatial“
       "Catia Application Frame" shouldn't you use the latest version?

3，Follow-up update patch cleaning the useless files and extra empty folder action !!!

The SPB17.4 installation package is currently the worst installation package I have seen for large-scale software packaging.

Hi,

I have a monitor plugged to my laptop using a HDMI to USB adapter. When using this adapter, Allegro runs very slowly. It seems that it is not using my video card.

Is this a known issue with a workaround I can try?

Thanks,

Michael

Hello..

I'm updating part in part editor in orcad capture, and I wonder how to align pin numbers using menu or tcl/tk command.

Please, let me know. Thank you.

Hi All

I am looking for the functions which are different about OrCAD Professional and Allegro tier.

is there any resource?

regard

Allegro part of DPI does not support scaling above 150%

Hi All

I followed tutorial video below for using Design link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9JmFF8lqA0

and I followed the video with embedded board design file which should be same one on video

I did every set. but  at 2:55 of video, Steve have the tabs of both design names on top of Constraint Manager in video

but my one didn't exist them

which one would be different?

there was some comment on command windows but I think they would not be problem here

regard

Hello. I am using Cadence 17.4 tools. When I open a package symbol (.dra) or board file (.brd) in Allegro that was created in an older version of the tool I get a message like this one (as expected):

"The design created using release 17.2 will be updated for compatibility with the current software..."

If I create a symbol or board file from scratch in the 17.4 tool then open it later, I get the same message. (always referring to version 17.2 which is the previous version I was using here).

So far this has not caused me any problems, but I would like to understand why it is doing this in case I have something setup incorrectly.

I only have version 17.4 installed. I am not exporting to a downrev version when I save (i.e. not using File->Export->Downrev design…) and in User Preferences->Drawing I don’t have anything selected for database_compatibility_mode. What else might I check?

FYI here is the tool version information that I see after selecting Help->About Symbol:

OrCAD PCB Designer Standard 17.4-2019 S012 [10/26/2020] Windows SPB 64-bit Edition

Thanks -Jason

I need to add a new CDF parameter called "mag" to symbols in a given library using skill script in which the symbol size can be controlled and call back it each time this library is used so that all the symbols are updated.

I have tried replicating the setup described in a previous post (here), with the proposed solution.

The MDL measurements return a value of 0 for all exported result but the first.

Using Viva I can actually see the correct value for each contribution.

I am using :
- Spectre 23.1.0.538.isr10
- Viva IC23.1-64b.ISR8.40

What should I do differently?

Thanks!

**** test.measure ****

Measurement Name   :  noi_test
Analysis Type      :  noise
noi_total             =  6.9282e-06
r1_flicker            =  0
r1_thermal            =  0
r1_total              =  0
r2_flicker            =  0
r2_thermal            =  0
r2_total              =  0

IC 23.1-64b.ISR8.40

Hi all, I'm trying to run an stb analysis in a dspf extracted view via Probe terminal. The instance exist in the dspf and I already prepended the X that is placed in the dspf extraction.

Spectre complains with the following error:

Error found by spectre during STB analysis `stb'.
    ERROR (SPECTRE-16408): The probe parameter must be specified to perform stability analysis.

Analysis `stb' was terminated prematurely due to an error.

What is missing here?

How can I place stacked vias with the size exact same cut width without metals around?
As the red part only in the image below?

For reasons too complicated to go into here, I need to generate the code for a veriloga view from a outside the normal Verilog-A editor. I would start with an "empty" veriloga view generated from the symbol in the normal way so I get the port order correct, then use external code to provide "guts" of the veriloga view by overwriting the generated code.

My understanding is that and code changes made external to the normal flow do not get picked up by Cadence - the Verilog-A code gets read at design time, not at netlist time. Would simply forcing a check and save of the veriloga view after the code is modified fix that problem? Or is there an easier way to incorporate externally generated Verilog-A code?

Hello Everybody

Recently, I want to design a high output Power Amplifier at 2.4GHz using TSMC 1P6M CMOS Bulk Process. I use its nmos_rf_25_6t transistor model to determine the approximate mosfet size

I use the most common Common-Source Differential Amplifier topology with neutralizing capacitor to improve its stability and power gain performance

Because I want to output large power, the size of mosfet is very large, the gate width is about 2mm, when I perform harmonic balance analysis, everything is alright, the OP1dB is about 28dBm (0.63Watt)

But When I perform Transient simulation, the magnitude of voltage and current waveform at the saturation point is too small, for voltgae, Vpeaking is about 50mV, for current, Ipeaking is about 5mA

I assume some reasons: the bsim4 model is not complete/ the virtuoso version is wrong (My virtuoso version is IC6.1.7-64b.500.21)/the spectre version is wrong (spectre version is 15.1.0 32bit)/the MMSIM version is wrong/Transient Simulation setting is wrong (the algorithm is select gear2only, but when I select other, like: trap, the results have no difference), the maxstep I set 5ps, minstep I set 2ps to improve simulation speed, I think this step is much smaller than the fundamental period (1/2.4e9≈416ps)

I have no idea how to solve this problem, please help me! Thank you very very much!

Hello

i did a sp-Analysis and now i want to extract the maximum value of the s11 trace and the corresponding frequency.

I already tried ymax() in the calculator but i am suspecting it only works on transient Signals.

Hello everyone,

I hope you're all doing well. I’ve set up two testbenches (TB1 and TB2) for my Design Under Test (DUT) using Cadence IC6.1.8-64b.500.21 tools, as shown in the attached figure. The DUT has multiple views available: schematic, Calibre, Maestro, and Symbol, and each testbench uses the same DUT in different scenarios. Currently, I have to manually switch between these views, but I would like to streamline this process.

My goal is to use a single config view that allows me to switch between the schematic and the extracted (Calibre) views. Ideally, I would like to have a configuration file where making changes once would update both testbenches (TB1 and TB2) automatically. In other words, when I modify one config, both testbenches should reflect this update for a single simulation run.

I would really appreciate it if you could guide me on the following:

1. How to create a config view for my DUT that can be used to easily switch between the schematic and extracted views, impacting both TB1 and TB2.
2. Where to specify view priorities or other settings to control which view is used during simulation.
3. Best practices for using a config file in this scenario, so that it ensures consistency across multiple testbenches.

Please refer to the attached figure to get a better understanding of the setup I’m using, where both TB1 and TB2 include the same DUT with multiple available views.

Thank you so much for your time and assistance!

Hello,

I am aware of command script .svcf file that saves signals and loads them in while opening Simvision.

I am wondering, if there is a way for saving signals while we are in an interactive session and loading them next time when we open Simvision interactively.

Any ideas on how to do this?

Thank you in advance.

Swetha. C

When analyzing multiple sessions simultaneously Verisium Manager crashed and reported below error messages:

# A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment:
#
#  SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0x00007efc52861b74, pid=14182, tid=18380
#
# JRE version: OpenJDK Runtime Environment Temurin-17.0.3+7 (17.0.3+7) (build 17.0.3+7)
# Java VM: OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Temurin-17.0.3+7 (17.0.3+7, mixed mode, sharing, tiered, compressed oops, compressed class ptrs, g1 gc, linux-amd64)
# Problematic frame:
# C  [libucis.so+0x238b74]

......

For more details please refer to the attached log file "hs_err_pid21143.log".

Two approaches were tried to solve this problem but neither has worked.
Method.1:

Setting larger heap size of Java process by "-memlimit" options.For example "vmanager -memlimit 8G".

Method.2:

Enlarging stack memory size limit of the Coverage engine by setting "IMC_NATIVE_STACKSIZE" environment variable to a larger value. For example "setenv IMC_NATIVE_STACKSIZE 1024000"

According to "hs_err_pid*.log" it is almost certain that the memory overflow triggered Java's CrashOnOutOfMemoryError and caused Verisium Manager to crash. There are some arguments about memory management of Java like "Xms, Xmx, ThreadStackSize, Xss5048k etc" and maybe this problem can be fixed by setting these arguments during analysis. However, how exactly does Verisium Manager specify these arguments during analysis? I tried to set them by the form of setting environment variables before analysis but it didn't work in analysis and their values didn't change.

Is there something wrong with my operation or is there a better solution?

Thank you very much.

I just completed the setup of xcelium and I am trying to test a very simple vhdl file - I got " CSI: *F,INTERR: INTERNAL EXCEPTION" without any further explanation. Could someone point me to how to investigate this error further?

csi-xmelab - CSI: Command line: 
xmelab
-f /home/cadadmin/test/xcelium.d/run.lnx86.23.03.d/xmelab.args
-ACCESS +r
-no_analogsolver
-MESSAGES
andgate
-XLMODE ./xcelium.d/run.lnx86.23.03.d
-RUNMODE
-CDSLIB ./xcelium.d/run.lnx86.23.03.d/cds.lib
-HDLVAR ./xcelium.d/run.lnx86.23.03.d/hdl.var
-WORK worklib
-IRUNHASTOP
-CHECK_VERSION TOOL: xrun 23.03-s001
-LOG_FD 4

csi-xmelab - CSI: *F,INTERR: INTERNAL EXCEPTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The tool has encountered an unexpected condition and must exit.
Contact Cadence Design Systems customer support about this
problem and provide enough information to help us reproduce it,
including the logfile that contains this error message.
TOOL: xmelab 23.03-s001
OPERATING SYSTEM: Linux 4.18.0-513.9.1.el8_9.x86_64 #1 
Elaboration of package STD.STANDARD
-----------------------------------------------------------------

csi-xmelab - CSI: Cadence Support Investigation, recording details
csi-xmelab - CSI: investigation complete took 0.000 secs, send this file to Cadence Support

Hello,

I have a question about toggle coverage.

In my case, there are many unused registers or wires that are affecting the toggle coverage score negatively.

Is it possible to automatically exclude registers or wires that are not used from toggle coverage?

My RTL code is as follows, Is it possible to automatically disable tb.top1.b and tb.top1.c without using an exclude file?

module top1;

  reg a;

  reg b;

  reg [31:0] c;

  initial

  begin

  #1 a=1'b0;

  #1 a=1'b1;

  #1 a=1'b0;

  end

endmodule

module tb;

  top1 top1();

endmodule

Hi,

Current and valid TCAs for Functional Safety are readily available at the FuSa "one-stop shop".

But I have not been able to find any archive repository for access to the obsoleted versions.

I would need to have also v1.4 of Xcelum TCA to investigate exact changes wrt previous projects.

Anyone knows how to find it?

Best regards,  Lars

Hi

I have tried using "add net constraints" command to place one-cold constraints on a tristate enable bus. In the command line we need to specify the "net pathname" on which the constraints are to be enforced.

The bus here is 20-bit. How should the net pathname be specified to make this 20-bit bus signals one_hot or one_cold.

The bus was declared as follows:
ten_bus [19:0]

The command I used was

add net constraints one_hot /ren_bus[19]

What would the above command mean?
Should we not specify all the nets' pathnames on the bus?
Is it sufficient to specify the pathname of one net on the bus?
I could not get much info regarding the functionality of this command. I would be obliged if anyone can throw some light.

Thanks
Prasad.

The two macros below introduce new syntax for adding definitions to more than one 'when' determinant value at the same time. The first macro overloads 'extend' keyword and the second is the equivalent for 'when' keyword.

A use example:

extend [HUGE, BIG] packet {
    // definitions that pertain to these subtypes
};

The above code would be expanded in the following (naive) way:

extend HUGE packet {
    // definitions that pertain to these subtypes
};
extend BIG packet {
    // definitions that pertain to these subtypes
};


The macros code:

define 'statement>
       "extend ['name>,...] 'name> ({;...})" as computed {
    for each in 'names> do {
        result = appendf("%sextend %s %s %s;",result,it,'name>,);
    };
    result = appendf("{%s}",result); // required only for versions 6.1.1 or earlier
};

define 'struct_member>
       "when ['name>,...] 'name> ({;...})" as computed {
    for each in 'names> do {
        result = appendf("%swhen %s %s %s;",result,it,'name>,);
    };
    result = appendf("{%s}",result); // required only for versions 6.1.1 or earlier
};

Hi all 

Good day.

Can anyone tell me whether it is possible to view the signals once it is modified from its previous values without closing the simvision window. If possible kindly let me know the command for it(Linux).

 Is it possible to view the schematic for the code written?? Kindly instruct me.

 Thanks all.

S K S 

Hello,

I have a question I want to create a cover that consists a sparse values, pre-computed (a list or define) for example l = {1; 4; 7; 9; 2048; 700} I'd like to cover that data a (uint(bits:16)) had those values, Any suggestion on how to achieve this, I'd prefer to stay away from macros, and avoid to write a lot of code

struct inst {

  data :uint(bits:16);
  opcode :uint(bits:16);
  !valid_data : list of uint(bits:16) = {0; 12; 10; 700; 890; 293;};
  event data_e;
  event opcode_e;

  cover data_e is {
     item data using radix = HEX, ranges = {
     //I dont want to write all of this
     range([0], "My range1");
     range([10], "My range2");
     //... many values in between
    range([700], "My rangen");
    };

    item opcode;

   cross data, opcode;
};

post_generate() is also {
    emit data_e;
};
};

Hi all, I've trained a device model with the approach of an artificial neural network, and it shows well fit. 

May I know how to transfer the trained model to Verilog-A, so that, we can use this model to do circuit simulation?

And I've searched for some lectures that provide the Verilog-A code in the appendix, but I'm freshman in the field of Verilog-A, 

could anyone tell me each statement? such as

real hlayer-w[0:(NI*NNHL)-1   

Melika Roshandell talks with David Malinak in a Microwaves & RF QuickChat video about the thermal challenges in today’s complex electronic designs and how the Celsius solver uniquely addresses them.(read more)

If you have seen any images or demonstrations of the 17.4-2019 release, the GUI may look ...(read more)

The Sigrity and Systems Analysis (SIGRITY/SYSANLS) 2022.1 HF2 release is now available for download at Cadence Downloads. For the list of CCRs fixed in the 2022.1 HF2 release, see the README.txt file in the installation hierarchy.(read more)

The silkscreen layer plays a crucial role in the assembly, repair, and testing of a PCB. You can add a variety of information to this layer, such as the location of the components, polarity, component orientation, on-off switches, LEDs, and testpoint...(read more)

Microwaves & RF's David Maliniak interviews Sherry Hess of Cadence about recently announced products of Optimality and OnCloud.(read more)

By combining finite element analysis with computational fluid dynamics, designers can perform complete thermal system analysis using a single tool.(read more)

The Allegro PCB Editor Basic Techniques course provides all the essential training required to start working with Allegro® PCB Editor. The course covers all the design tasks, including padstack and symbol creation, logic import, constraints setup...(read more)

Do you know if it is possible to define localized back etching (LBE) in EMX? It should be associated to a layer which defines the holes done in the substrate. I've not found any reference for this in the .proc syntax. 

--> Answer found. This is not possible because EMX considers the same dielectric in all x-y plane

Dear all,

Hi!

I'm trying to do a Harmonic Balance (HB) Large-Signal S-Parameter (LSSP) simulation to figure out the input impedance of a nonlinear circuit.

Through this simulation, what I want to know is the large-signal S11 only (not S12, S21 and S22).

So, I have simulated with only single port (PORT0) at input, but LSSP simulation is terminated and output log shows following text.

" Analysis `hb' was terminated prematurely due to an error "

The LSSP simulation does not proceed without second port.

Should I use floating second port (which is not necessary for my circuit) to succeed the LSSP simulation?

Does the LSSP simulation really need two ports?

Below figure is my HB LSSP simulation setup.

Additionally, Periodic S-Parameter (PSP) simulation using HB is succeeded with only single port.

What is the difference between PSP and LSSP simulations?

Hello, Currently i am designing a 96MHZ crystal oscillator using pierce topology and also I use for amplitude gain control circuit for regulation. The problem is when i run a PSS + Pnoise i get these warnings :

WARNING (CMI-2375): M2: Vgs has exceeded the oxide breakdown voltage of `vbox' = 6 V.
WARNING (CMI-2375): M4: Vgs has exceeded the oxide breakdown voltage of `vbox' = 6 V.
WARNING (CMI-2377): M4: Vgd has exceeded the oxide breakdown voltage of `vbox' = 6 V.
WARNING (CMI-2377): M3: Vgd has exceeded the oxide breakdown voltage of `vbox' = 6.6 V.

and also WARNING (CMI-2682): M5: The bulk-drain junction forward bias voltage (1.38154 V) exceeds VjdmFwd'=851.514mV ,The results are now incorrect because the junction current model has been linearized

Note : i am using Supply 1.2 V hence it is not possible to exceed the oxide breakdown. 

So i am asking why i am getting these warnings , it could be a convergence problem and the Results computed are not corrected.

Also when running DC and transient , i don't get these warnings.

Hi *,

I am simulating a 32kHz high Q crystal oscillator with a pulse shaping circuit. I set up a PSS analysis using the Shooting Newton engine. I set a beat frequency of 32k and used the crystal output and ground as reference nodes. After the initial transient the amplitude growth was already pretty much settled such that the shooting iterations could continue the job.

My problem is: In 5...10% of my PVT runs the simulator detects a frequency divider in the initial transient simulation. The output log says:

Frequency divided by 3 at node <xxx>

The Estimated oscillating frequency from Tstab Tran is = 11.0193 kHz .

However, the mentioned node is only part of the control logic and is always constant (but it has some ripples and glitches which are all less than 30uV). These glitches spoil my fundamental frequency (11kHz instead of 32kHz). Sometimes the simulator detects a frequency division by 2 or 3 and the mentioned node <xxx> is different depending on PVT - but the node is always a genuine high or low signal inside my control logic.

How can I tell the simulator that there is no frequency divider and it should only observe the given node pair in the PSS analysis setup to estimate the fundamental frequency? I have tried the following workarounds but none of them worked reliably:

- extended/reduced the initial transient simulation time

- decreased accuracy

- preset override with Euler integration method for the initial transient to damp glitches

- tried different initial conditions

- specified various oscillator nodes in the analysis setup form

By the way, I am using Spectre X (version 21.1.0.389.ISR8) with CX accuracy.

Thanks for your support and best regards

Stephan