Posts Tagged ‘Standards’

20 August, 2014

The ever popular Accellera Design & Verification Conference held annually in Silicon Valley is going global.  Accellera System Initiative has expanded many of its SystemC user group events to be more inclusive of other Accellera and IEEE standards.  In doing so, the local organizers of these events have moved to adopt the popular DVCon USA style to organize their events to include this large complement of standards.  If you want to attend, participate or contribute to the events, follow the links as shared below.

Mentor Graphics is excited to participate and sponsor these user-led events with a keynote address, technical paper presentations and educational tutorials.  We look forward to see you in September for DVCon India in Bangalore and in October for DVCon Europe in Munich.

DVCon Europe (14-15 October 2014 | Munich, Germany) will target the application of standardized languages, tools, and methodologies for the design and verification of electronic systems and integrated circuits. The two day event will feature tutorials on the first day and technical paper presentations and poster sessions on the second day.  The DVCon Europe program list the details of the conference.  It is collocated with the annual Forum on Design Languages (FDL), which runs from 14-16 October 2014 in case you want to extend your stay for an extra third day.

At DVCon Europe Mentor Graphics is collaborating with our industry peers and users on a tutorial titled Enabling Energy-Aware System Level Design with UPF-Based System Level Power Models. As power has become one of the major concerns in design equaling those of feature, function and performance, more advances are needed to address system power challenges.  The tutorial will explore the use of IEEE Std. 1801™ (UPF) and how design and verification flows can best use it.

Mentor Graphics will also sponsor a tutorial titled Creating Portable Tests with a Graph-Based Test Specification.  It will cover an overview of a graph-based test description language that raises the level of verification abstraction to address system level challenges. This technology is being used by many successful verification teams around the world today and it is the technology we have committed to help build a new standard upon in Accellera.

DVCon India (25-26 September 2014 | Bangalore, India) is the first year of the transition of the popular Indian SystemC User Group (ISCUG) meeting into an event that expands to cover topics that bring together all the stakeholder involved in design and verification of IP, SoC, ASIC, FPGA and system level solutions.   The event is over two days with common sessions in the morning for keynote addresses.  The attendees will then break into an ESL track and Design & Verification track for focused sessions.

Mentor Graphics will sponsor a tutorial session as well as host the keynote presentation by Mentor Graphics CEO, Dr. Walden C. Rhines.  Dr. Rhines will review recent Wilson Research Group study results on the ongoing convergence of SoC design practices towards a common methodology, independent of specify tools being use. In this keynote, Dr. Rhines identifies the common attributes of SoC methodology that are emerging, and will highlight specific capability enablers for the further optimization of SoC design verification.

Registration for both events is now open and I hope you have time in your calendar to make it there.  Both events will have an exhibition area where you can also catch up on recent updates to our products and discuss what you think should be added next.  The Mentor Graphics team looks forward to meeting you there!

, , , , , , , ,

9 July, 2014

Accellera has announced the completion of a multi-year effort to update its latest edition of the Universal Verification Methodology (UVM).  In completing this effort, the UVM 1.2 Class Reference Document was approved as an Accellera standard and the UVM Working Group has supplied an accompanying open-source reference implementation.  Questa supports UVM 1.2.

In addition to the resources you can download from Accellera, additional information on UVM 1.2 can be found at the Verification AcademyHTML documentation can easily be found at the Verification Academy too.

If you are a user of UVM 1.1 and have not been part of the UVM 1.2 development effort, you should know your peers have been busy the past few years since the stabilization and completion of UVM 1.1 to drive global adoption of UVM and to add, enhance and extend UVM.  In UVM 1.2 Messaging is now object-oriented, Sequences can automatically raise and drop objects, the register layer can now control transaction order within bursts and numerous bugs in UVM 1.1 have been fixed to improve quality.

Backward Incompatibility

All these changes come with a cost to the current UVM 1.1 user community.  When Accellera announced UVM 1.2 availability, it also disclosed some of the new features introduce backward incompatibility.  To reduce those issues, Accellera is making release notes and a one way conversion script part of the UVM 1.2 kit to ease the migration path forward.

If you follow the Verification Academy Cookbook rules, you will probably not see any impact from the backward compatibility issues.  And if you control your total verification environment, you will probably find it simpler to migrate forward as well.  Those who depend on outside resources will need to make sure those resources (like Verification IP) migrate forward to UVM 1.2 so you can migrate forward to UVM 1.2.  Mixing UVM 1.1 and UVM 1.2 was not considered by the Accellera UVM Working Group and is fraught with unknown issues.  We consider the migration an all or nothing proposition.  If you have multi-division, multi-company projects underway, it would be prudent to plan you move to UVM 1.2 with care at the conclusion of projects and when all suppliers and participating teams can migrate to UVM 1.2.

Public Review Period

Accellera seeks your input and feedback on UVM 1.2.  To support this, a public review forum on the Accellera website has been established to allow users to catalog issues, ask questions and generally offer feedback to help improve UVM 1.2 quality.

The public review process will end on October 1, 2014.  We encourage users to take the time now to test UVM 1.2 in their own environments and share their feedback to expidite the migration to UVM 1.2.

Path to IEEE

Public feedback will be taken into account along with further Accellera member testing to update UVM 1.2 prior to a committed hand-off to the IEEE for further standardization there later this year.  As this path unfolds, I will share updates on the standardization effort in the IEEE.

Verification Academy DAC 2014 UVM 1.2 Presentation

You will find many resources around the world on UVM 1.2.  At DAC 2014, the Verification Academy booth sponsored a session on UVM 1.2 titled  “UVM: What’s New, What’s Next, and Why You Care.”  If you did not attend DAC, you can still download the presentation and watch a video replay of it if you are a Verification Academy “full access” member (free registration required; restrictions apply).

The presentation by Tom Fitzpatrick goes into detail on the UVM 1.2 topic.  Importantly in Tom’s presentation is a discussion about what you should care about today.  You may find that software is a big issue and that his thesis challenges one to ask if UVM 1.2 is stuck in the past rather than addressing what should be addressed next.  I invite you to download the presentation and watch the video and share with me your thoughts. What do you think?

, , , , ,

10 April, 2014

Its always fun to take the wraps off of solutions we have been hard at work developing.  The global team of Mentor Graphics engineers have spent considerable time and energy to bring the next level of SoC design and verification productivity to what seems to be a never ending response to Moore’s Law.  As silicon feature sizes get smaller, design sizes get larger and the verification problem mushrooms.  But you know that.  These changes are the constants that drive the need for continued innovation.  Our next level of innovation for design verification is embodied in the Mentor Enterprise Verification Platform (EVP) which we recently announced.

Gary Smith recently published Keeping Up with the Emulation Market, and lays out the fact that verification platforms are unifying with emulation now a pivotal element, not just for microprocessor design success, but for Multi-Platform Based SoC design success as well.  The need to bring software debug into the loop with early hardware concepts is a verification challenge that must be supported as well.  Pradeep Chakraborty reported on the point made by Anil Gupta of Applied Micro at the UVM 1.2 Day in Bangalore where Anil implored “Think about the block, the subsystem and the top.”  The point made was software is often overlooked or under tested prior to committing to hardware implementation implying that our focus on UVM leaves us to verify no higher than where UVM takes us – and that is not the “top” of the SoC that mandates software be part of the verification plan.

Path to Success

With the Mentor EVP, we do address these issues.  We bring simulation and emulation together in a unified platform.  Software debug on conceptual hardware is supported to address verification at the “top.”  And even as Gary’s report concludes with a wonder about how easy access to emulation will be supported for the masses.  That too is solved in the Mentor EVP using VirtuaLAB that can be hosted in data centers along with the emulator vs. complex, one-off lab setups that lock an emulator to a design and lock out your global team of software developers from collaborating.  The Mentor EVP moves to emulation for the masses in a 24×7 world.

With big designs comes big data and complex debug tasks.  These complex debug tasks are all easily handled by the new Mentor Visualizer Debug Environment that has native UVM and SystemVerilog class-based debug capabilities and low-power UPF debug support to easily pinpoint design errors. All of this works in both interactive and post-simulation modes for simulation and emulation.  To keep the software team productive, and get to SoC signoff sooner, the innovative and new Veloce OS3 global emulation resourcing technology moves software debug think-time offline to Mentor’s Codelink software debug tool.

And there’s more!  But I’ll leave that for you to discover.  When you have time, visit us here, to learn more about the Mentor Enterprise Verification Platform.

Path to Standards

As the move to support Multi-Platform Based SoC evolves, so do the standards that underpin it.  And as I’ve reported on the comments of others in this blog – and the understanding from our experience that UVM can only go so far in Multi-Platform Based SoC verification – we concluded the time is right for the industry to explore the need for new standards.

We announced at DVCon 2014 an offer to take our graph-based test specification into an Accellera committee to help move beyond the limitations today’s standards have.  As our investment in tools, technology and platforms continues, we are keenly aware users want their design and verification data to be as portable as possible.  The Accellera user community members echoed the need to discuss portable stimulus that can take you up and down the design hierarchy from block, to subsystem, to system (“top”) and support the concurrent design of hardware and software.

In support of this, Accellera approved the formation of a Portable Stimulus Specification Proposed Working Group (PWG) to study the validity and need for a portable stimulus specification.  To that end, join me at the kickoff meeting to launch this activity on Wednesday, May 7, 2014 from 10:00am to 4:00pm Pacific time at the offices of Mentor Graphics in Fremont, CA USA.  If you would to attend, or you would  like time on the agenda to discuss technology that would advance the development of a Portable Stimulus Specification or discuss your objectives/requirements for this group, contact me and I will put you in touch with the meeting organizer.  Accellera PWG meetings are open to all and do not require Accellera membership status to attend.

, , , , , , , , , ,

11 February, 2014

DVCon 2014 LogoOne of the nice things about DVCon is the update one can get from the developers of IEEE and Accellera standards.  And this year’s DVCon is no exception.  The four days of DVCon begin and end with tutorials that cover updates to popular standards like UVM, UPF, SystemC and more.  For our part, Mentor Graphics is participating in the development and delivery of these updates with our peers.

UVM LogoI have written in the past about the productivity challenges before us to address the verification crisis and the emergence of machine-to-machine communication and the Internet of Things driving power aware design and verification.  To advance the demands on improved verification and help to address the verification crisis, the next round in the Universal Verification Methodology (UVM) standard is being readied for industry adoption.  UVM 1.2, the emerging update will be covered in some detail in a Monday morning tutorial to help you learn “What’s Now and What’s Next.”  Mentor Graphics’ Tom Fitzpatrick and Accellera Working Group representative will present in this tutorial.

UVM 1.2 is an active development project of Accellera and has not yet been released so there is no official standard available for download and use yet.  I’ll share standardization details as they happen.

At the same time on Monday, those who are concerned with power aware design and verification can attend the tutorial on the Unified Low Power Format (UPF), or as it is officially called IEEE 1801™-2013.  The tutorial will cover the full spectrum of UPF capabilities and methodology from basic to advanced applications.  So if you are new to UPF and want to learn, this is a great tutorial to attend.  And if you are already an expert, the advanced application of UPF as highlighted by those companies who have adopted UPF make this valuable for you as well.  Mentor Graphics’ Erich Marschner and IEEE 1801 Working Group vice-chair will participate in this tutorial.

UPF is an official IEEE standard.  Have you downloaded your copy yet?  Accellera has worked with the IEEE to make no-charge access to the official standard for you.  You can find the UPF standard here.

In the afternoon, there will be a session on case studies in SystemC.  User and vendor presentations will explore use of this standard.  SystemC offers much in the verification space, not just in technology but learning on how to bridge the RTL world with transaction level modeling world.  Mentor Graphics’ John Stickley will review what we have learned and how you can apply it to your most pressing verification needs.

SystemC is an official IEEE standard.  Have you downloaded your copy yet?  Under the Accellera agreement with the IEEE, you can download SystemC standard here.

There is a lot more to DVCon than just the use of current standards and planning adoption of emerging standards.  I encourage you to check out the whole agenda and join me at DVCon 2014 March 3-6.

Mentor Graphics presentations during the conference include:

  • Tuesday Paper Sessions
    • Amit Srivastava – Stepping Into UPF 2.1 World: Easy Solution to Complex
      Power Estimation
    • Kenneth Bakalar – Interpreting UPF For A Mixed-Signal Design Under Test
    • Gordon Allan – Tried and Tested Speedups for Software-Driven SoC Simulatio
  • Tuesday Poster Sessions
    • Rich Edelman – Debugging Communicating Systems: The Blame Game – Blurring
      the Line Between Performance Analysis and Debug
    • Matthew Balance – Tackling Random Blind Spots with Strategy-Driven Stimulus Generation
    • Gaurav K. Verma – Supercharge Your Verification Using Rapid Expression Coverage as the Basis of a MC/DC-Compliant Coverage Methodology
    • Andreas Meyer – So You Think You Have Good Stimulus: System-Level Distributed Metrics Analysis and Results
    • Rich Edelman – UVM SchmooVM – I Want My C Tests!
    • Thom Ellis – Are  You Really Confident That You Are Getting the Very Best From Your Verification Resources?
    • Jitesh Bansal – Is Your Power Aware Design Really X-Aware
  • Wednesday Paper Sessions
    • Avidan Efody – Wiretap Your SoC: Why Scattering Verification IPs Throughout Your Design Is A Smart Thing To Do
    • Tom Fitzpatrick – Of Camels and Committees: Standards Should Enable Innovation, Not Strangle It

Mentor Graphics will host its traditional lunch at DVCon on Wednesday on the theme of Accelerating Verification.  And we have lively panel participants for the Tuesday and Wednesday panels.  And, as always, the Exhibit, CEO Keynote and Panels are open to all a no charge – you just have to REGISTER!

I look forward to seeing you there!

, , , , ,

6 January, 2014

The UCIS Story

There is no secret as design sizes grow it is doubly burdensome for verification.  Two factors that are easy to measure is the time it takes to simulate a design and the other is the size of the dataset that contains the results of the verification runs. Simulation times are growing and the datasets are getting larger.  While time and attention is given to accelerated verification through emulation, or alternate verification methods, to reduce run times, less explored is the impact of larger datasets on verification closure.  How does one find bugs within datasets that are so large?  How can verification results from simulation, emulation, formal and more be brought together to help drive verification closure?  How can one link failures in verification back to requirements?

The Accellera standards organization took a multi-year journey to help address these issues and arrived at the creation of the Unified Coverage Interoperability Standard (UCIS).  You can get your free copy here if you would like to read and use it.  Mentor Graphics contributed a significant starting point to the standard and collaborated with major competitors and users to add to and extend from there.  But now that the standard is done, what does one do with it?

While that was a rhetorical question when the standard was done in 2012; today it begs an answer.

From my perspective there are two classes of users of UCIS.  The more immediate users are those who are building verification tools that must contend with design and verification complexity now.  With UCIS they have the initial underpinnings to add product features that will allow a level of data portability that was not present prior to the standard.  The second class of users are those who will use the UCIS Application Programming Interface (API) to build functions that will perform simple and complex tasks on these large datasets.  This last class of user that might exchange UCIS API code with each other has yet to materialize.  But the stage is set for them.

To highlight what the first class of UCIS adopters have been doing, DVClub in Europe will tackle to answer this question as on what one can do with UCIS on Monday, 13 January 2014.  Darron May, Product Manager at Mentor Graphics will speak for us on our application of the standard.  His session is titled Blending Metrics from Multiple Verification Engines to Improve Productivity.  You can find out more details about the DVClub event (speakers and presentation abstracts) and register here to attend in person or via remote access.  The event will be held 12:00-14:00 GMT and is free.

, , , , , ,

15 October, 2013

Low Power Flow Kicks-off Symposium

In the world of electronic design automation, as an idea takes hold and works its way from thought to silicon, numerous tools are used by engineers and the like to help bring a good idea to product fruition.  Standards play a key and important role to help move your user information from high-level concepts into the netlists can be realized in silicon.  The IEEE Standards Association is holding a Symposium on EDA Interoperability to help members of the electronics/semiconductor design and verification community better understand the landscape of EDA and IP standards and the role they play to address interoperability.

Another key component are the programs and business relationships we foster to promote tool connectivity and interoperability among each other.  The Questa users rely on the Questa Vanguard Partnership program so their trusted tool and technology partners have access to our verification technology to allow them to craft the leading edge design and verification flows with technology from numerous sources.  If your users want you to connect with Questa, we invite them to explore the benefits of this program.  Even better, join us at the IEEE SA Symposium on EDA Interoperability where can also discuss this in person – Register Here!

Event Details
Date: 24 October 2013
Time: 9:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PT
Location: Techmart – 5201 Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, CA 95054-1125
Cost: Free!
Program: http://standards.ieee.org/events/edasymposium/program.html

One of the more pressing issues in design and verification today is address the issue of low power.  The IEEE SA Symposium on EDA kicks-off the morning with its first session on “Interoperability Challenges: Power Management in Silicon.”  The session will feature an opening presentation on the state of standardization by the Vice Chair of the IEEE P1801 Working Group (and Mentor Graphics Verification Architect) as well as two presentations from ARM on the use of the IEEE 1801 (UPF) standard.

11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Session 1: Interoperability Challenges: Power Management in Silicon
IEEE 1801 Low Power Format: Impact and Opportunities
Erich Marschner, Vice Chair of IEEE P1801 Working Group, Verification Architect, Mentor Graphics
Power Intent Constraints: Using IEEE1801 to improve the quality of soft IP
Stuart Riches, Project Manager, ARM
Power Intent Verification: Using IEEE1801 for the verification of ARM Cortex A53 processor
Adnan Khan, Senior Engineer, ARM

The event is sponsored by Mentor Graphics and Synopsys and we have made sure the symposium is free to attend.  You just need to register.  There are other great aspects to the event, not just the ability to have a conversation on the state of standards for low power design and verification in the morning.  In fact, the end of the event will take a look at EDA 2020 and what is needed in the future.  This will be a very interactive session that will open the conversation to all attendees.  I can’t wait to learn what you have to share!  See you at the Techmart on the 24th.

, , , , , , ,

5 August, 2013

Language and Library Trends

This blog is a continuation of a series of blogs that present the highlights from the 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study (for a background on the study, click here).

In my previous blog (Part 7 click here), I focused on some of the 2012 Wilson Research Group findings related to testbench characteristics and simulation strategies. In this blog, I present design and verification language trends, as identified by the Wilson Research Group study.

You might note that for some of the language and library data I present, the percentage sums to more than one hundred percent. The reason for this is that some participants’ projects use multiple languages.

RTL Design Languages

Let’s begin by examining the languages used for RTL design. Figure 1 shows the trends in terms of languages used for design, by comparing the 2007 Far West Research study (in gray), the 2010 Wilson Research Group study (in blue), the 2012 Wilson Research Group study (in green), as well as the projected design language adoption trends within the next twelve months (in purple) as identified by the study participants. Note that the design language adoption is declining for most of the languages with the exception of SystemVerilog whose adoption continues to increase.

Also, it’s important to note that this study focused on languages used for RTL design. We have conducted a few informal studies related to languages used for architectural modeling—and it’s not too big of a surprise that we see increased adoption of C/C++ and SystemC in that space. However, since those studies have (thus far) been informal and not as rigorously executed as the Wilson Research Group study, I have decided to withhold that data until a more formal blind study can be executed related to architectural modeling and virtual prototyping.

Figure 1. Trends in languages used for Non-FPGA design

Let’s now look at the languages used specifically for FPGA RTL design. Figure 2 shows the trends in terms of languages used for FPGA design, by comparing the 2012 Wilson Research Group study (in red) with the projected design language adoption trends within the next twelve months (in purple).

Figure 2. Languages used for Non-FPGA design

It’s not too big of a surprise that VHDL is the predominant language used for FPGA RTL design, although we are starting to see increased interest in SystemVerilog.

Verification Languages

Next, let’s look at the languages used to verify Non-FPGA designs (that is, languages used to create simulation testbenches). Figure 3 shows the trends in terms of languages used to create simulation testbenches by comparing the 2007 Far West Research study (in gray), the 2010 Wilson Research Group study (in blue), and the 2012 Wilson Research Group study (in green).

Figure 3. Trends in languages used in verification to create Non-FPGA simulation testbenches

The study revealed that verification language adoption is declining for most of the languages with the exception of SystemVerilog whose adoption is increasing. In fact, SystemVerilog adoption increased by 8.3 percent between 2010 and 2012.

Figure 4 provides a different analysis of the data by partitioning the projects by design size, and then calculating the adoption of SystemVerilog for creating testbenches by size. The design size partitions are represented as: less than 5M gates, 5M to 20M gates, and greater than 20M gates. Obviously, we find that the larger the design size, the greater the adoption of SystemVerilog for creating testbenches. Yet, probably the most interesting observation we can make from examining Figure 4 is related to smaller designs that are less than 5M gates. Here we see that 58.8 percent of the industry has adopted SystemVerilog for verification. In other words, it is safe to say that SystemVerilog for verification has become mainstream today and not just limited to early adopters or leading-edge design projects.

Figure 4. SystemVerilog (for verification) adoption by design size

Let’s now look at the languages used specifically for FPGA RTL design. Figure 5 shows the trends in terms of languages used for FPGA design, by comparing the 2012 Wilson Research Group study (in red) with the projected design language adoption trends within the next twelve months (in purple).

Figure 5. Trends in languages used in verification to create FPGA simulation testbenches

In my next blog (click here), I’ll continue the discussion on design and verification language trends as revealed by the 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

16 July, 2013

It is often said that the English language is one of the most difficult languages to learn: inconsistent spelling rules; the same words are used with different meanings in different contexts. “Why does a farmer produce produce?

Working on the SystemVerilog IEEE 1800 standard, I understand that even more clearly now. The word class is used many times in different contexts to mean slightly different things that the reader is expected to understand. With brevity, but little more attention to clarity, I will explain some of these different contexts.

Class Types

When you declare a class, you are declaring set of members and a set of methods that operate on those members.

class MyClass; bit [7:0] member1; 
 bit member2;
 function void method; 
   $display("members are %h %b", member1, member2); 
 endfunction 
endclass 

Consider this a user defined type, like a typedef. We are declaring the form and behavior of a type, but nothing is allocated to store the values of this type.

Class Objects

A class object is a particular instance of a class type. Each instance is an allocation of the members defined by the class type. The only way to create an object is to call the class constructor using the built-in new() method of a class. We classify class objects as dynamic objects because executing a procedural statement is the only way to create them.

Class Handles

Each time you call the new() method, it constructs a new class object and the method returns a class handle to the class object. A handle is an indirect reference to a class object, like a pointer to an address in memory. Unlike pointers in other languages such as C/C++, you are very limited in what you can do with a handle in SystemVerilog.

Class Variables

A class variable is where you store the class handle that references a particular class object of a particular class type. Declaring a class variable does not create a class object, only the space to hold the class handles. This contrasts with other data types where the declaration of a variable creates an object of that type and gives you a symbolic name to reference those objects. For example:

typesef struct {bit [7:0] member1; bit member2;} MyStruct; 
MyStruct StructVar1, StrucVar2

This creates and allocates the space for two MyStruct type objects and you can use StructVar1.member1 to access one of its members. On the other hand:

MyClass ClassVar1, ClassVar2;

This creates and allocates the space for two MyClass variables, but only allocates the space to hold handles to MyClass objects, not the objects themselves. If you tried to access ClassVar1.member1 now, you would get a null handle reference error because the initial value of a class variable is the special value null. One of the nice things about handles instead of pointers is that they remove the possibility of corrupt object references that access uninitialized or de-allocated memory.

Class Types, Objects, Handles, and Variables

Once you have a class variable, you can call the new() method to construct a class object

ClassVar1 = new();

This calls the constructor of the MyClass type that returns a handle to a MyClass object and then stores that handle in the MyClass variable, ClassVar1. You can now access ClassVar1.member1 because ClassVar1 references an actual object. If you then do:
ClassVar2 = ClassVar1;
Both class variables reference now the same class object – but there is still only one object of MyClass. ClassVar1.member1 and ClassVar2.member1 refer to the same class member.

Class Dismissed

Just remember to add a few extra words when mentioning classes and it will make things much clearer to the reader.

There are whole other classes of class thingy’s I could have explored, but I hope this class on classes will motivate you to learn more of the subtle meanings behind the words.

, ,

28 June, 2013

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.

, , , , , , , , , ,

29 May, 2013

Download the standard now – at no charge

The IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA) has published the latest UPF 2.1 standard, officially called IEEE Standard for Design and Verification of Low-Power Integrated Circuits, many refer to it as IEEE 1801 or UPF for the Unified Power Format as this was the name Accellera had given it prior to transferring standardization responsibility and ongoing maintenance and enhancement to the IEEE.  Further – Courtesy of Accellera – the standard is available for download without charge directly from the IEEE.

1801-2013_Page_001The latest update to IEEE 1801 is ready for download.  It joins other EDA standards, like SystemVerilog and SystemC in the IEEE Get™ program that grants public access to view and download current individual standards at no charge as a PDF.  (If you wish to have an older, superseded and withdrawn version of the standard or if you wish to have a printed copy or have it in a CD-ROM format, you can purchase older and alternate formats from IEEE for a fee.)

The official IEEE announcement on the standard’s publication can be found here.  And the official Accellera announcement that it has partnered with the IEEE-SA to offer the standard to all at no charge can be found here.  This revision of the standard had one of the largest number of IEEE-SA entity members of any corporate standards program.  Participation from the IEEE-SA global community of entity participants ensures the needs of a broad set of companies are captured to support this worldwide standard.

Just In Time For DAC

50th DACDAC 2013 has many events that will allow you to learn more about the new standard and how to use it to your maximum benefit.  And for those who cannot attend DAC, visit the Verification Academy, you will find the Low Power sessions cover the new standard as well. [Registration required; restrictions apply.]

Sunday
Topic: DAC Workshop:  Low-Power Design with the New IEEE 1801-2013 Standard
Date: 2 June 2013
Time: 1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Location: Convention Center: Room 18C
Registration: Official DAC Workshop registration required ($). For more information and to register, click here.


Monday
Accellera Breakfast & Town Hall Meeting
Topic: The Standard for Low Power Design and Verification is here!  What’s next?
Date: 3 June 2013
Time: 7:00 a.m. – 8:45 a.m.
Location: Convention Center: Ballroom D
Registration: This is a free Accellera event, but registration is required.  Form more information click here and to register, click here.


Monday
Verification Academy
Topic: “Low Power Monday”
Date: 3 June 2013
Time: 11:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Location: Tradeshow Floor – Booth 1215
Registration: The DAC Tradeshow floor is open to all DAC registrants. Visit www.dac.com to register.

The Verification Academy is open to all DAC registrants.  There are no restrictions and we invite everyone to visit booth 1215 for Low Power sessions that may be of interest to you on Monday.  To help judge attendance, please feel free to pre-register at here.  I look forward to see you there as you will find me here most of the time Monday-Wednesday.

Time Description Presenter
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Low Power Verification Tim Jordon
MicroChip Technlogy
1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m What’s New in UPF 2.1? Erich Marschner
IEEE 1801 Vice-chair
Mentor Graphics
2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. UPF-Based Verification for Cypress PSOC Ellie Burns
Mentor Graphics
4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Optimizing for Power Efficient Design Abhishek Ranjan
Calypto
5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. IEEE 1801 UPF Commands and Methodology John Biggs
ARM
IEEE 1801 Chair

If you are coming to DAC and participating in the DAC Low Power Workshop on Sunday, or in other events, download your person copy of the new IEEE 1800-2013 standard today.  The PDF form allows you to take it with you and read it using your favorite e-reader or i-device.  Let’s me know what you think of the standard.  And – See you at DAC!

, , , , , , ,

@dennisbrophy Tweets

  • Loading tweets...

@dave_59 Tweets

  • Loading tweets...