1 / 14

A Proposal for Routing-Based Timing-Driven Scan Chain Ordering

A Proposal for Routing-Based Timing-Driven Scan Chain Ordering. Puneet Gupta 1 Andrew B. Kahng 1 Stefanus Mantik 2 (abk,puneet@ucsd.edu, smantik@cadence.com) 1: UC San Diego 2: Cadence Design Systems Inc. Outline . Introduction and Previous Work Motivation Our Contributions

emiko
Download Presentation

A Proposal for Routing-Based Timing-Driven Scan Chain Ordering

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. A Proposal for Routing-Based Timing-Driven Scan Chain Ordering Puneet Gupta1 Andrew B. Kahng1 Stefanus Mantik2 (abk,puneet@ucsd.edu, smantik@cadence.com) 1: UC San Diego 2: Cadence Design Systems Inc.

  2. Outline • Introduction and Previous Work • Motivation • Our Contributions • Timing Aware Connection • Experiments • Conclusions

  3. SI SI SI Q Q Q FFA FFB FFC PO PI Introduction and Previous Work • Scan chains are commonly used to enhance testability. All flip-flops are chained to form a shift register. • A goal of DFT is to minimize the impact of test circuitry on performance. • Minimizing wirelength overhead of scan is essential.

  4. Q Q A B SI SI B’ Q Q A’ SI SI Pin-to-pin distance Q Q A” B” SI SI Introduction and Previous Work • 3 different distance metrics considered for modeling scan chain ordering as TSP • Nature of TSP • Cell-to-cell: Metric, symmetric • Pin-to-pin: Almost symmetric and almost metric • Pin-to-net: Asymmetric and Non-metric • Our [ASPDAC’03] work: Trial routing driven pin-to-net distance metric gives best WL results (upto 80% better than industrial P&R tools) Cell-to-cell distance from FFB to FFA Pin-to-net distance

  5. d(Q,SI) Q SI d(Q’,SI) FFB FFA Q’ Routing Aware Scan Chain Ordering (ASPDAC’03) • Incremental routing cost based on existing or anticipated routing. • Considers both Q and Q’ outputs for the minimum wirelength connection. • Driven by global routing or trial detailed routing. Routing tree of Q’

  6. Motivation • No timing awareness in previously published literature • Industry design methodologies constrain the FF output pin to be used for scan connection • 60% of scan nets fall into this category in our test cases • Potentially large WL overhead • Unnecessarily constrains synthesis and layout

  7. Our Contributions • A method to compute timing driven incremental connection to existing route • A buffer insertion method when timing is not met • We highlight a potential use in scan chain ordering

  8. Timing Aware Connection • Divide routing tree into optimization segments. E.g., o1 (begin1 end1) • 1: influenced sink for o1 • 2: uninfluenced sink • Elmore delay model used

  9. Optimal Attachment Point • For uninfluenced sink 2 Linear dependence • r(l(root,b21)) * (c(x1+l(SI,v1))+CSI ) Slack1 • xmin = Slack1/ rc(l(root,b21)) – CSI/c - l(SI,v1) • For influenced sink 1Quadratic dependence • r(l(root;b11)+l(begin1;v1) (c(x1+l(SI;v1))+CSI)  Slack2 • Compute xminusing quadratic expression theory • Closed form solution for xmin given in the paper • Compute xmin for all sinks and optimization segments • Smallest xmin  Minimum WL timing-feasible attachment point d(Q,SI)

  10. ATSP Optimization • Calculate optimal attachment points for (Q,SI) and ( ,SI) • TSP edge cost = min(d(Q,SI), d ( ,SI) ) • No timing-feasible connection  label cost as a large number M • Solve the ATSP • M cost edges marked for buffer insertion • ScanOpt used as the solver (http://vlsicad.ucsd.edu/GSRC/Bookshelf/Slots/ScanOpt/)

  11. Buffer Insertion • Assume fixed buffer sites with given locations • Compute optimal attachment points for every (buffer site, M cost edge in the TSP tour) pair • Cost of assigning a buffer site B to an edge e(ff1,ff2) = WL(ff1,B) + WL(B,ff2) • Solution of the assignment problem  buffered scan chain solution

  12. Tour Structure Dissimilarity • Flows • I: Pin-to-pin distances • II: Pin-to-net • III: Timing Driven • Testcases • 1226 scan FFs • A, Aswap, Aexpand have different placements • Dissimilarity = % of different edges in the tour

  13. Implementation with Industry Router Fails • Vpin based incremental routing with Cadence Wroute: • Placing vpins on routing grid avoiding other pins • Placing vpins as regions as well as points • Routing from scratch as well as ECO • Pre-routing scan nets as well as routing all nets together • None of the above work • Routing never completes

  14. Conclusions • We have given a proposal for • Incremental connection of a pin to a routing tree • Insertion of buffers in case timing is violated • Basis for true timing driven scan chain ordering • Not able to validate the flow due to router not being able to handle vpins properly • Need layout tools that can handle constraint dominated usage contexts

More Related