Breaking News
Blog

The future of SoC verification: Is it enterprise computing?

Ron Wilson
8/26/2010 10:10 PM EDT

 4 comments   post a comment
NO RATINGS
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
nicolas.mokhoff
User Rank
Rookie
re: The future of SoC verification: Is it enterprise computing?
nicolas.mokhoff   9/1/2010 1:10:55 PM
NO RATINGS
eewiz: I agree that cloud computing needs to be applied to EDA design methodologies. A few brave EDA vendors have dipped their toes in cloud computing waters, including Cadence. Just need to address the security and business model issues. Can my design stay mine and can my company make money in the clouds?

eewiz
User Rank
CEO
re: The future of SoC verification: Is it enterprise computing?
eewiz   9/1/2010 8:51:47 AM
NO RATINGS
I feel the EDA tool usage pattern is best suited for a cloud computing model. This will help to speed up verification time & reduce the initial investment & EDA tool licensing cost for the companies. Any thoughts on this?

CamilleK
User Rank
Rookie
re: The future of SoC verification: Is it enterprise computing?
CamilleK   8/30/2010 6:17:15 AM
NO RATINGS
Enterprise computing and collaborative tools are indeed becoming essential in verification. @Ron: I might add that reduction in verification time can be achieved with reuse of pre-verified blocks(as a mandated discipline and not as an occasional approach) and building re-configurability (and de-configurability) of interfaces by design. These also have the added advantage of forcing some thinking in formalizing the specs and making decisions on fit for the target application and for the design intent.

VincePG
User Rank
Rookie
re: The future of SoC verification: Is it enterprise computing?
VincePG   8/27/2010 9:57:42 PM
NO RATINGS
A fundamental problem with design is that it's not in English. It is in machine code. The errors come in the translation and the inability to identify all the corner cases in English. English is inexact, takes too much time and is very tedious. All requirements should be in C-like forms to reduce ambiguity and equivocation. A tool that takes C-code and translates it into verification assertions is helpful, but the way people approach their C-code requirements needs to be structured to fit the interpreter. That’s the rub. Engineers need to know the interpreter’s peccadilloes and incorporate it into their code, not the other way around. An interpreter is only as good as the engineer that uses it. External auditing of the acceptability of C-language statements relative to the interpreter could be helpful, but on leading edge design, the audit team has designed the interpreter for problems they know about, not ones that are being presently created. Maybe stating the obvious, but leading edge designers are often left to the task of debugging the tools purchased to help them and training the auditors in the process. Brings into question, who should be paying who?

Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week