Part 3: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study

Clocking and Power Trends

In Part 2 of this series of blogs, I continued the discussion focused on design trends (click here) as identified by the 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study (click here). In this blog, I continue presenting the study findings related to design trends, with a focus on clocking and power trends.

Independent Asynchronous Clock Domains

Figure 1 shows the percentage of designs developed today by the number of independent asynchronous clock domains. The asynchronous clock domain data for FPGA designs is shown in red, while the data for the non-FPGA designs is shown in green.

 

Figure 1. Number of independent asynchronous clock domains

Figure 2 shows the trends in number of independent asynchronous clock domains for non-FPGA designs. The comparison includes the 2002 Collett study (in dark green), the 2007 Far West Research study (in gray), the 2010 Wilson Research Group study (in blue), and the 2010 Wilson Research Group study (in green).

Figure 2. Trends: Number of independent asynchronous clock domain

It’s interesting to note that, although the number of clock domains is increasing over time, the sweet spot in terms of number of independent asynchronous clock domains seems to remain between 2 and 20, and it hasn’t changed significantly in the past ten years.

Figure 3 provides a different analysis of the data by partitioning the projects by design sizes, and then calculating the mean number of independent asynchronous clock domains by project design. The design size partitions are represented as: less than 5M gates, 5M to 20M gates, and greater than 20M gates.

Figure 3. Mean number of independent clock domains by design size

Power Management

Today, we see that about 67 percent of design projects actively manage power with a wide variety of techniques, ranging from simple clock-gating, to complex hypervisor/OS-controlled power management schemes. We decided for the 2012 Wilson Research Group study that we wanted to take a closer look at power management related to functional verification. Hence, I can share some interesting results with you here. However, since this aspect of functional verification has never been studied in previous surveys, I will not be able to show trends. Our goal is to carry these same questions forward in our future studies so that we can identify trends.

For these, Figure 4 shows the various aspects of their power-managed design that they verify (for those 67 percent of design projects that actively manage power).

Figure 4. Aspects of power-managed design that are verified

In our study, we asked what percentage of simulation was power-aware (that is, verifying some functional aspect of the power-management scheme), and the results are shown in Figure 5. We were surprised to learn that about 10 percent of all designs that actively manage power perform no power-aware simulation to verify the power management scheme.

Figure 5. Percentage of simulation that verified some aspect of power management

In addition, we asked what percent of verification resources were focused on power management verification, and the results are shown in Figure 6. You will note that the curve is very similar to the percentage of total simulations that were power-aware, which you would expect. Again, we see that about 10 percent of the projects that actively manage power provide no verification resources to verify the power-management scheme.

 

Figure 6. Percentage of verification resources focused on power management

Figure 7 shows the different types of simulation-based functional testing approaches that are currently applied to verifying power management. It’s not a surprise that most power-aware simulation is based on directed-testing approaches since often (but not always) power-aware simulations are performed at the SoC integration level where directed testing is common.

 

Figure 7. Percentage of simulation that verified some aspect of power management

Since the power intent cannot be directly described in an RTL model, alternative supporting notations have recently emerged to capture the power intent. In the 2012 study, we wanted to get a sense of where the industry stands in adopting the notation. For projects that actively manage power, Figure 8 shows the various notations that have been adopted to describe the power intent. Some projects are actively using multiple standards (such as different versions of UPF or a combination of CPF and UPF). That’s why the adoption results do not sum to 100 percent.

 

Figure 8. Notation used to describe power intent

In my next blog (click here), I’ll present data on design and verification reuse trends.

Post Author

Posted June 28th, 2013, by

Post Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Post Comments

3 Comments

About Verification Horizons BLOG

This blog will provide an online forum to provide weekly updates on concepts, values, standards, methodologies and examples to assist with the understanding of what advanced functional verification technologies can do and how to most effectively apply them. We're looking forward to your comments and suggestions on the posts to make this a useful tool. Verification Horizons BLOG

@dennisbrophy Tweets

  • Loading tweets...

@dave_59 Tweets

  • Loading tweets...

@jhupcey Tweets

  • Loading tweets...

Comments

3 comments on this post | ↓ Add Your Own

Commented on July 3, 2013 at 9:38 am
By Blog Review: July 3 | System-Level Design

[…] Ed Sperling Mentor’s Harry Foster returns with part 3 of his Wilson Research Group survey results for verification, this one focused […]

[…] Part 3 – Clocking and Power […]

[…] the 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study (click here).  In my previous blog (click here), I focused on clocking and power management.  In this blog, I focus on design and verification […]

Add Your Comment

Archives

November 2014
  • SystemVerilog Testbench Debug – Are we having fun yet?
  • ARM® Techcon Paper Report: How Microsoft Saved 4 Man-Months Meeting Their Coverage Closure Goals Using Automated Verification Management & Formal Apps
  • Preparing for the Perfect Storm with New-School Verification Techniques
  • On-Demand Webinar: UVM Sequences in Depth
  • October 2014
  • DVCon India: A Smashing Hit!
  • September 2014
  • Portable and Productive Test Creation with Graph-Based Stimulus
  • Supporting A Season of Learning
  • August 2014
  • DVCon Goes Global!
  • Better Late Than Never: Magical Verification Horizons DAC Edition
  • July 2014
  • Accellera Approves UVM 1.2
  • May 2014
  • Getting More Value from your Stimulus Constraints
  • The FPGA Verification Window Is Open
  • April 2014
  • UVM DVCon 2014 Tutorial Video Online
  • Mentor Enterprise Verification Platform Debuts
  • March 2014
  • New Verification Academy ABV Course
  • DVCon 2014 Issue of Verification Horizons Now Available
  • February 2014
  • DVCon–The FREE Side
  • More DVCon–More Mentor Tutorials!
  • UVM 1.2: Open Public Review
  • DVCon 2014: Standards on Display
  • Just because FPGAs are programmable doesn’t mean verification is dead
  • January 2014
  • Managing Verification Coverage Information
  • November 2013
  • Epilogue: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • New Verification Horizons Issue Available
  • October 2013
  • Happy Halloween from ARM TechCon
  • IEEE Standards Association Symposium on EDA Interoperability
  • STMicroelectronics: Simulation + Emulation = Verification Success
  • September 2013
  • A Decade of SystemVerilog: Unifying Design and Verification?
  • Part 12: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • August 2013
  • Part 11: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 10: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 9: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 8: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • July 2013
  • Part 7: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Walking in the Desert or Drinking from a Fire Hose?
  • Part 6: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • A Short Class on SystemVerilog Classes
  • Part 5: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 4: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • June 2013
  • Part 3: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 2: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • May 2013
  • Texas-Sized DAC Edition of Verification Horizons Now Up on Verification Academy
  • IEEE 1801™-2013 UPF Standard Is Published
  • Part 1: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • What’s the deal with those wire’s and reg’s in Verilog
  • April 2013
  • Getting AMP’ed Up on the IEEE Low-Power Standard
  • Prologue: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • March 2013
  • Even More UVM Debug in Questa 10.2
  • IEEE Approves New Low Power Standard
  • February 2013
  • Verification Horizons DVCon Issue Now Available
  • Get your IEEE 1800-2012 SystemVerilog LRM at no charge
  • IEEE 1800™-2012 SystemVerilog Standard Is Published
  • See You at DVCon 2013!
  • Get Ready for SystemVerilog 2012
  • January 2013
  • VHDL Update Comes to Verification Academy!
  • December 2012
  • IEEE Approves Revised SystemVerilog Standard
  • November 2012
  • Coverage Cookbook Debuts
  • October 2012
  • IoT: Internet of Things
  • Check out the October, 2012 Verification Horizons
  • Improving simulation results with formal-based technology
  • Introducing “Verification Academy 2.0”
  • September 2012
  • OVM Gets Connected
  • August 2012
  • OpenStand & EDA Standardization
  • July 2012
  • Synthesizing Hardware Assertions and Post-Silicon Debug
  • Virtual Emulation for Debugging
  • Verification Academy: Up Close & Personal
  • SystemC Standardization Cycle Completes
  • Verification Standards Take Another Step Forward
  • New UVM Recipe of the Month: Scoreboarding in UVM
  • June 2012
  • Intelligent Testbench Automation – Catching on Fast
  • May 2012
  • Two Articles You Need to Check Out
  • Off to DAC!
  • Dave Rich Featured on EEWeb
  • March 2012
  • How Did I Get Here?
  • February 2012
  • Expanding the Verification Academy!
  • Get on the Fast Track to Advanced Verification with UVM Express
  • Introducing UVM Connect
  • Tornado Alert!!!
  • UVM: Some Thoughts Before DVCon
  • UVM™ at DVCon 2012
  • January 2012
  • SystemC 2011 Standard Published
  • Verification solutions that help reduce bug cost
  • December 2011
  • Instant Replay for Debugging SoC Level Simulations
  • 2011 IEEE Design Automation Standards Awards
  • November 2011
  • Getting started with the UVM – Using the Register Modeling package
  • TLM Becomes an IEEE Standard
  • October 2011
  • Worlds Standards Day 2011
  • VHS or Betamax?
  • Verification Issues Take Center Stage
  • September 2011
  • New UVM Recipe-of-the-Month: Sequence Layering
  • July 2011
  • Combining Intelligent Testbench Automation with Constrained Random Testing
  • Going from “Standards Development” to “Standards Practice”
  • Verification Academy Now Includes OVMWorld Content
  • June 2011
  • Intelligent Testbench Automation Delivers 10X to 100X Faster Functional Verification
  • Part 9: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Verification Horizons DAC Issue Now Available Online
  • Accellera & OSCI Unite
  • The IEEE’s Most Popular EDA Standards
  • UVM Register Kit Available for OVM 2.1.2
  • May 2011
  • Part 8: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Getting Your Standards Update @ DAC 2011
  • April 2011
  • User-2-User’s Functional Verification Track
  • Part 7: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 6: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • SystemC Day 2011 Videos Available Now
  • Part 5: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 4: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 3: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • March 2011
  • Part 2: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 1: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Prologue: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Language Transitions: The Dawning of Age of Aquarius
  • Using the UVM libraries with Questa
  • February 2011
  • DVCon: The Present and the Future
  • Free at Last! UVM1.0 is Here!
  • Parameterized Classes, Static Members and the Factory Macros
  • IEEE Standards in India
  • January 2011
  • Accellera Approves New Co-Emulation Standard
  • December 2010
  • New Verification Horizons: Methodologies Don’t Have to be Scary
  • The Survey Says: Verification Planning
  • October 2010
  • Towards UVM Register Package Interoperability
  • IEC’s 47th General Assembly Meeting Opens
  • UVM: Giving Users What They Want
  • September 2010
  • UVM Takes Shape in the Accellera VIP-TSC
  • Accellera VIP-TSC Selects RAL for UVM 1.0 Register Package
  • OVM Cookbook Available from OVMWorld.org
  • UVM Register Package Candidate News
  • August 2010
  • Redefining Verification Performance (Part 2)
  • July 2010
  • Making formal property checking easy to use
  • Redefining Verification Performance (Part 1)
  • SystemVerilog Coding Guidelines: Package import versus `include
  • June 2010
  • The reports of OVM’s death are greatly exaggerated (with apologies to Mark Twain)
  • New Verification Academy Advanced OVM (&UVM) Module
  • OVM/UVM @DAC: The Dog That Didn’t Bark
  • DAC: Day 1; An Ode to an Old Friend
  • UVM: Joint Statement Issued by Mentor, Cadence & Synopsys
  • Static Verification
  • OVM/UVM at DAC 2010
  • DAC Panel: Bridging Pre-Silicon Verification and Post-Silicon Validation
  • Accellera’s DAC Breakfast & Panel Discussion
  • May 2010
  • Easier UVM Testbench Construction – UVM Sequence Layering
  • North American SystemC User Group (NASCUG) Meeting at DAC
  • An Extension to UVM: The UVM Container
  • UVM Register Package 2.0 Available for Download
  • Accellera’s OVM: Omnimodus Verification Methodology
  • High-Level Design Validation and Test (HLDVT) 2010
  • New OVM Sequence Layering Package – For Easier Tests
  • OVM 2.0 Register Package Released
  • OVM Extensions for Testbench Reuse
  • April 2010
  • SystemC Day Videos from DVCon Available Now
  • On Committees and Motivations
  • The Final Signatures (the meeting during the meeting)
  • UVM Adoption: Go Native-UVM or use OVM Compatibility Kit?
  • UVM-EA (Early Adopter) Starter Kit Available for Download
  • Accellera Adopts OVM 2.1.1 for its Universal Verification Methodology (UVM)
  • March 2010
  • The Art of Deprecation
  • OVM 2.1.1 Now Ready for Download
  • February 2010 Verification Horizons Newsletter Now Available
  • IEEE Standards Meetings in India
  • February 2010
  • I Do It …
  • SystemVerilog: A time for change? Maybe not.
  • Partners Offer Support for OVM 1.0 Register Package
  • SystemC Day at DVCon
  • OVM/VMM Interoperability Kit: It’s Ready!
  • January 2010
  • Three Perfect 10’s
  • OVM 1.0 Register Package Released
  • Accellera Adopts OVM
  • SystemC (IEEE Std. 1666™) Comes to YouTube
  • Debugging requires a multifaceted solution
  • December 2009
  • A Cliffhanger ABV Seminar, Jan 19, Santa Clara, CA
  • Truth in Labeling: VMM2.0
  • IEEE Std. 1800™-2009 (SystemVerilog) Ready for Purchase & Download
  • December Verification Horizons Issue Out
  • Evolution is a tinkerer
  • It Is Better to Give than It Is to Receive
  • Zombie Alert! (Can the CEDA DTC “User Voice” Be Heard When They Won’t Let You Listen)
  • DVCon is Just Around the Corner
  • The “Standards Corner” Becomes a Blog
  • I Am Honored to Honor
  • IEEE Standards Association Awards Ceremony
  • ABV and being from Missouri…
  • Time hogs, blogs, and evolving underdogs…
  • Full House – and this is no gamble!
  • Welcome to the Verification Horizons Blog!
  • September 2009
  • SystemVerilog: The finer details of $unit versus $root.
  • SystemVerilog Coding Guidelines
  • July 2009
  • The Language versus The Methodology
  • May 2009
  • Are Program Blocks Necessary?