Subscribe to EDN

State of the union...of digital and analog

October 29, 2009

I spent part of last Tuesday at the Cadence mixed-signal workshop. I went mainly out of interest to see how things had progressed since I worked at Cadence. I had been put in charge of what we called the Superchip project, which was actually integrating together the custom design and the digital synthesis, place & route design to get them into a single design environment. The heart of the problem was to get both systems onto a single database for mixed signal design. This turned out to be immensely complicated since the basic semantics of the two design databases were so different, and nobody in the company had a deep understanding of both of them.

Now, many years later, that work seems to have largely been achieved, but in about 5 times as long as we originally planned.

I thought the most interesting thing was a summary of just how much mixed-signal is impacting design cost. Over 50% of re-spins at 65nm are due to mixed-signal and each respin costs $5-10M and takes 6-8 weeks. Mixed-signal chips typically take 4-5 respins to get right. That is a huge cost both in direct dollars ($20M-50M) and in time (4-5 respins of 6-8 weeks is upwards of 6 months).

The level of mixed-signal effort and the expertise required is also increasing significantly. It now takes 50% of the effort for 10% of the transistors. The basic technology for integration and verification is still too fragmented and there is a lot of ad hoc work to tie together things like self-test.

The next area of difficulty is packaging. It severely impacts device performance due to the package parasitics. The lack of good optimization tools for the chip/package interface makes for lower performance and further drives package costs up.

Posted by Paul McLellan on October 29, 2009 | Comments (1)

November 1, 2009
In response to: State of the union...of digital and analog
d-jeff commented:

Yes, it is still a complex task to design analog and mixed signal stuff. To me, designer in this field, it is definitely a matter of tools, but may be not the way you suggest: The only design toll is the one you've got between your ears... Other tools are verification tools. Even though important to check what your brain has produced, it is only checking, not designing. As such, tools should be thought to be more efficient as checkers. It's amazing the lack of simple functionnalities that would help designers and save time, the number of bugs that burn deigner's time and the number of expensive and useless features that try to design instead of helping to check. Digital tools start from a formal description and go to a synthesis and checking process that can be automated. For analog and mixed signal, the lack of a formal and complete description makes it impossible to go through a fully automated flow. I'm not sure such a process is achievable. We'd rather improve that designer based process through suitable tools that really help.

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
About EDN   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   Subscription   |   RSS
© 2011 UBM Electronics. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other UBM Canon sites

UBM Canon | Design News | Test & Measurement World | Packaging Digest | EDN | Qmed | Pharmalive | Appliance Magazine | Plastics Today | Powder Bulk Solids | Canon Trade Shows