Breaking News
Blog

Embrace formal verification, make more money, take better vacations

Blog
10/1/2010 08:37 AM EDT

 2 comments   post a comment
NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 2 Next >
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Robert Peruzzi
User Rank
Author
re: Embrace formal verification, make more money, take better vacations
Robert Peruzzi   10/29/2010 4:10:59 PM
NO RATINGS
Hello Harry, I am one of those who are passionate about verification. I'm nearly always disappointed to see that the exciting new verification tools only work with 100% digital ICs. Iíve always worked with mixed signal SOCs with digital circuitry in the analog feedback loop. Placing such digital circuitry in a black box with the analog circuitry allows one to use digital verification tools but leaves holes in the verification plan. Here are some mixed-signal building blocks with high-risk digital content. In particular, Iím talking about analog front-end sub-circuits with digital controls that are generated by signal processing the output of the A/D converter. For example: * Automatic Gain Control * Digital PLL (discrete incremental control over sampling frequency and phase) * Adaptive Analog Filters * Built-in Analog Self-Test * Automatic Calibration and Offset Cancelation A workaround is to create a "real" testbench to verify the mixed-signal SOC. In addition, create a "spoof" testbench which quarantines the mixed-signal content to make the SOC look like a 100% digital IC. The real testbench includes assertions for verifying power-up sequencing, bias currents, reference voltages and the validity of digital controls. It also assigns variables such as gain, frequency, phase or other analog quantities versus time, for which assertions are written. I haven't found a way to objectively measure and quantify the completeness of mixed-signal verification -- with or without assertions. I long for the day when verification tools are written to assist the mixed-signal verification engineer with the real SOC testbench. I welcome further comments about mixed-signal verification. Has anyone found solutions to the problems I've described? Contact me via my web page or LinkedIn profile if you have questions of your own, or need help with RF, Analog and mixed-signal SOC verification. Cheers, Bob P. R. Peruzzi Consulting, Inc. URL: www/RPeruzzi.com LI: www/LinkedIn.com/in/Peruzzi

Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed