This document discusses the increasing complexity of system-on-chip (SoC) designs and the challenges this poses for design tools. SoCs now contain large amounts of both analog and digital circuitry, with the analog portions becoming more complex. Traditional analog design flows are manual and do not scale well. New model-based approaches are needed. Digital designs also continue growing in capacity but current tools cannot handle blocks larger than 1 million cells, forcing designs to be artificially partitioned. Distributed implementation approaches can help improve productivity by implementing larger designs across multiple servers. Finally, signoff closure times are too long, requiring new integrated flows to reduce iterations and speed up the final netlist closure.

1. redefining Mixed System-on-Chip Design Rajeev Madhavan CEO and Chairman, Magma Design Automation

2. Power System-on-Chip Complexity Continues to Rise Memory Computing Motorola DroidX More functionality Much more Analog IP Large, complex digital blocks Shorter time-to-market Multimedia NFC Connectivity Communication GPS Software Gyrometer

3. SoC Example - 28nm 4G/3G Wireless Mobile Chip Chip Stats: Instances: ~20 Million Top Level: 3.5 Million Blocks: 25-30 Block sizes: 100K – 1M cells Clocks: >70 Frequency: 400MHz-1.5GHz Utilization: 70-80% Timing Scenarios: 70-80 10 Modes 7 Corners Components Application Processor Modem Display & Imaging Support A/R Interfaces GSM GPS Memory Video CODEC RF Interfaces ADC DAC Graphics Audio CODEC Connectivity SDIO USB SIM GPIO Internal Functions Clock Generation Power Optimization Security PLL Analog Digital Mixed

4. Challenges to Build this SoC Increasing Analog IP Increasing Digital Capacity & Complexity Final Signoff Closure

5. Complexity Is Ever Increasing For Analog IP Complexity of analog IP has increased multiple fold Current design flows are manual and very iterative. Not scalable for increasing complexity of analog IP designed using advance process nodes Productivity has to be improved for next generation analog IP

6. Analog IP Design Flows Have Not Evolved Traditional Iterative Analog Design Entire design flow must be manually repeated to accommodate any change in: Design Specifications & Constraints Process node Target Fab Each new derivative requires nearly complete redesign

7. New Model-Based Analog Design Customized Analog IP Optimization Goals Circuit Models Target Specs SerDes Charge Pump Voltage Reg Opamps Layout Process Models (PDK)

8. Analog Optimization – Multiple Specs in a Week PLL’s generated for many specs simultaneously (Frequency ranges, Jitter, Bandwidth, Area, Power etc.)

9. Analog Optimization – Power vs Area Analog optimization provides quick tradeoffs of power and area for design exploration Example: Regulator circuit Analog optimization characterized on 5 corners Tradeoff 40% power reduction vs 50% area reduction

10. Challenges to Build this SoC Increasing Analog IP Increasing Digital Capacity & Complexity Final Signoff Closure

11. Digital Designs: Increasing Capacity Dramatic throughput needed 10M Capacity-Driven Productivity Gap Flat Block Capacity (000s of Instances) 3M 1M 500K Achievable Flat Block Capacity 250K Needed Flat Block Capacity

12. Limitations in Tool Capacity Create Risk 500K 500K 1M Limitations force design teams to artificially break up design 5 blocks, 10 blocks, 20 blocks, 50 blocks or more? Partitioning increases complexity – more iterations!!! Requires budgeting, clocks and interface timing closure Introduces schedule risks, requires more engineering resources 1M

13. Multi-Threading: Good, but not Good Enough Typical “sweet spot” for EDA multi-threading Number of cores/threads

14. Current Digital Design Methodology 80M Cells

15. Multi-million cells/day throughput Design capacity per engineer up to 10M cells, flat! Place & Route Distributed Implementation (Master Process) 4-5M Place & Route Place & Route 1 – Implementation Engineer Place & Route Place & Route New Distributed Digital Design

16. Benefit of Distributed Design Greatly increases designer productivity Leverages existing hardware and P&R licenses Implements bigger designs faster using existing engineering resources

17. Design Example ~4M cells hierarchical design Redefined as flat and distributed across 8 servers

18. Challenges to Build this SoC Increasing Analog IP Increasing Digital Capacity & Complexity Final Signoff Closure

19. Final Signoff Closure Too Long ~50 days ~50 days 8-20 Iterations Final Netlist Closure: 100 days! 3-5 days per iteration!

20. New ZERO ECO Approach Best-in-class runtime for each tool  Improves TAT of each iteration Integrated flow  Fewer iterations Result: Faster Total Throughput 20 days 5 days 5 days 10 days Place & Route Multi-Processing Signoff Verification Final Netlist Closure: 40 days! 1-2 days per iteration

21. Summary Every SoC is Mixed Signal Every EDA tool must focus on Silicon first Mixed Signal SoC redefined  EDA must comprehend & solve new mixed signal challenges