IP integration is hard

11/13/2012 8:02 PM EST

Presumably TSMC had problems that people were using IP that they had endorsed and then when problems were found it was difficult to know who to turn to.

Manoj: It was a little bit different from that. TSMC has the program called TSMC 9000. There is a lot of hard IP already in there. It was fairly easy to look through the catalog, find what you wanted and then contact the IP vendor for it. But most customers will want soft IP and TSMC wanted to make sure that the IP met a certain level of quality.

Now the rules cannot find all problems and problems with the IP may still be found and the IP supplier is still responsible for their IP. The problem is that with any IP there is “as delivered” versus “as used”. It is possible that my IP may be useable in ten or fifteen different ways and it is possible that it has been verified in two of those ways. If the customer uses it in a new, but legal way, then the two companies will work together to resolve the problems.

TSMC acts as a marketing partner for qualified IP and the customer get some assurances that the level of quality has met a minimum level in certain aspects.

TSMC continues to manage the program. Can accept or reject any IP supplier even if they pass all Spyglass rules?

Manoj: As part of the testing for the initial version and the new version, TSMC asked a number of IP suppliers to go through the process and the three companies revue the errors that come up. Typically the IP supplier will go and fix the errors and IP reevaluation happens.

Can an IP provider ask for a waiver on anything that does not pass?

Manoj: They can ask for a waiver but it is up to TSMC if they accept it. There are cases where this happens. An example might be the rules that checks for hanging inputs. In a case where inputs are parameterized there may be some inputs that are left hanging in a specific configuration. TSMC may say – yes, we understand what is going on and we will let it go. Another example may be companies that have bus/interconnect fabrics. Much of the configuration stuff doesn’t apply to them, such as power estimation. I can’t estimate power for a NoC so it would be a rule that is exempt for that class of IP.

You say that there are 15 companies qualified on this new version. How many were on the previous version.

Manoj: There were 10 IP providers qualified on version 1.0. Currently, over 15 soft IP suppliers have been qualified through the new program. IP Kit 2.0 represents an enhanced set of checks that adds physical implementation data (e.g., area, timing and congestion) and advanced formal lint checks (e.g., X-assignment, dead code detection). IP Kit 2.0 also allows easier integration into the end user’s design flow and enhanced IP packaging options. ARM is also signed up for the program now.

What makes this 2.0?

Manoj: The biggest change is in what we are checking. We can look at the RTL and for example, predict where your physical congestion issues may be. We can also look at FSMs and identify deadlocks, unreachable states etc.

Thanks Manoj