210 likes | 222 Views
This presentation discusses compaction and pattern dropping techniques to reduce test pattern size and improve coverage in combinational logic circuits. The algorithm overview, implementation details, and experimental results are presented.
E N D
Compaction and pattern drop Intaik Park Ahmad Al-Yamani RATS (Reliability and Testability Seminar) Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Outline • Introduction • Algorithm overview • Implementation • Experimental result Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Introduction • Current issue: test pattern size too big • Compaction • Pattern dropping • Limitations • Compaction – pattern size still big • Pattern dropping – coverage drop Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Motivation • Need to compact as much as possible • Want to drop pattern with less coverage drop • Exploit don't-care terms Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Outline • Introduction • Algorithm overview • Implementation • Experimental result Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Algorithm overview 1. Compare patterns 2. similar patterns? regenerate one pattern compatible with the other 3. Merge patterns Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Definitions • Distance between patterns • Number of different care bits • Essential faults • Faults that are only detected by a certain pattern Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Regeneration • Pattern A: 0 1 X X X 1 1 X X X 0 • Pattern B: 1 1 X X X 0 X 1 X X X (Distance: 2) • Regenerate Pattern B • Pattern A : 0 1 X X X 1 1 X X X 0 • Pattern B' : 0 1 X X X 1 1 1 X X 0 • Now compatible Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Pattern distance graph Pat B 2 Pat A 3 7 3 Pat C 8 1 2 9 5 Pat E Pat D Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Essential Faults • Pattern A: fault f1, f2 • Pattern B: fault f3, f4 • Pattern C: fault f1, f4, f5 • Essential faults for Pattern A : f2 • Essential faults for Pattern B : f3 • Essential faults for Pattern C : f5 Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Essential Faults (contd.) • Pattern A: fault f1, f2 • Pattern B: fault f3, f4 • Pattern C: f1, f4, f5 • If Pattern B' covers fault f1, f2, f3 • no fault coverage drop • If Pattern B' covers fault f1, f2, f4 • fault f3 missed Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Outline • Introduction • Algorithm overview • Implementation • Experimental result Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Implementation • Commercial ATPG tool (regeneration) • PI and cell constraints • Perl script and C++ (pattern compare and setup generation) Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
flowchart Start Merge patterns with least coverage drop CheckDistances between pattern pairs Pattern size Small enough? Regenerate patterns with small distance No Yes End Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Outline • Introduction • Algorithm overview • Implementation • Experimental result Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Experimental circuits Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Result on LSI2901 Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Result on Bmatch Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Result on 8051 Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Conclusion • Shrink test pattern size with less affect on coverage • Works better with... • Large design • Scan-inserted design • Need transition fault flow • Use essential faults in regeneration Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004
Reference [1] Cost-Effective Generation of Minimal Test Sets for Stuck-at Faults in Combinational Logic Circuits - Kajihara, Kinoshita, M. Reddy 1995 [2] On Compacting Test Sets by Addition and Removal of Test Vectors - Kajihara, Pomeranz, Kinoshita, M. Reddy - 1994 IEEE Intaik Park, RATS, Fall 2004