1 / 19

Using Hierarchy in Design Automation: The Fault Collapsing Problem

Raja K. K. R. Sandireddy Intel Corporation Hillsboro, OR 97124, USA r aja.sandireddy@intel.com. Vishwani D. Agrawal Auburn University Auburn, AL 36849, USA vagrawal@eng.auburn.edu. Using Hierarchy in Design Automation: The Fault Collapsing Problem. 11 th VLSI Design and Test Symposium

adia
Télécharger la présentation

Using Hierarchy in Design Automation: The Fault Collapsing Problem

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. Raja K. K. R. Sandireddy Intel Corporation Hillsboro, OR 97124, USA raja.sandireddy@intel.com Vishwani D. Agrawal Auburn University Auburn, AL 36849, USA vagrawal@eng.auburn.edu Using Hierarchy in Design Automation: The Fault Collapsing Problem 11thVLSI Design and Test Symposium Kolkata, August 8-11, 2007

  2. Outline • Introduction • Main idea • Background on fault collapsing • Hierarchical fault collapsing • Method • Advantages: • Smaller collapse ratio • Reduced CPU time • Results • Conclusion VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  3. The General Idea of Hierarchy Lowest-level block (gates and interconnects), analyzed in detail, saved in library. Circuit (top level In hierarchy) Subnetwork analyzed once, placed in library. interconnects Analysis at nth level: 1. Copy preprocessed internal detail of n-1 level from library. 2. Process nth level interconnects. VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  4. Background on Fault Collapsing Test Vector Generation Flow DUT Generate fault list Collapse fault list Generate test vectors Fault model Required fault coverage VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  5. Structural Fault Collapsing • Equivalence Collapsing: It is the process of selecting one fault from each equivalence fault set. • Equivalence collapsed set = {a0, b0, c0, c1} • Collapse ratio = 4/6 = 0.67 • Dominance Collapsing: From the equivalence collapsed set, all dominating faults are left out retaining their respective dominated faults. • Dominance collapsed set = {a0, b0, c1} • Collapse ratio = 3/6 = 0.5 Total faults = 6 VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  6. An Example of Structural Collapsing a0 a1 a c0 c1 f0f1 e0 e1 b0b1 b c e f d0 d1 d Total faults = 12 Structural Equivalence collapsed faults = 8 Structural Dominance collapsed faults = 6 Three tests, {00,01,10}, cover all faults VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  7. Functional Collapsing • Two faults are functionally equivalent if the corresponding faulty functions are identical. • Functional dominance can be similarly defined. • Determination of functional equivalence or dominance is as complex as test generation or equivalence checking. • A graph-theoretic method for fault collapsing: • A. V. S. S. Prasad, V. D. Agrawal and M. V. Atre, “A New Algorithm for Global Fault Collapsing into Equivalence and Dominance Sets,” Proc. Int. Test Conf., 2002, pp. 391-397. • V. D. Agrawal, A. V. S. S. Prasad and M. V. Atre, “Fault Collapsing via Functional Dominance,” Proc. Int. Test Conf., 2003, pp. 274-280. VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  8. Dominance Collapsed Set a0 a1 a c0 c1 f0 f1 e0 e1 b0b1 b c e f d0d1 d Total faults = 12 Structural Equivalence collapsed faults = 8 Structural Dominance collapsed faults = 6 Functional dominance collapsed faults = 4 Two tests, {01,10}, cover all faults VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  9. Functional Collapsing: XOR Cell Functional dominance examples: d0 → j0, k1→ g0 c0 c1 All faults = 24 Str. Equ. Faults = 16 Str. Dom. Faults = 13 Func. Dom. Faults = 4 c d0 d1 h j a g m d e b k i f VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  10. Hierarchical Fault Collapsing • Create a library • For smaller (gate-level) circuits, exhaustive (functional) collapsing may be done. • For larger circuits, use structural collapsing. • For hierarchical circuits, at any level of hierarchy, say nth level: • Read-in preprocessed (library) collapse data of (n-1) level sub-circuits. • Structurally collapse the interconnects and gate faults of nth level. • R. K. K. R. Sandireddy and V. D. Agrawal, “Diagnostic and Detection Fault Collapsing for Multiple Output Circuits,” Proc. Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conf., March 2005, pp. 1014–1019. • R. Hahn, R. Krieger, and B. Becker, “A Hierarchical Approach to Fault Collapsing,” Proc. European Design & Test Conf., 1994, pp. 171–176. VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  11. A Fault Collapsing Library *Sun Ultrasparc 5_10 (360MHz, 128MB) VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  12. Collapse Ratios for Ripple-Carry Adders Collapse ratio Total faults 234 1,858 14,850 118,786 475,138 In hierarchical collapsing, faults in lowest level cells (XOR, full-adder, half-adder) are functionally collapsed. Programs used: 1. Hitec (obtained from Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) 2. Fastest (obtained from Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison) 3. Our program (Auburn Univ.) VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  13. CPU Time (sec) Improvement by Hierarchy for Ripple-Carry Adder VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  14. G is proportional to area Rent’s rule • Rent’s Rule: Number of inputs and outputs terminals (T) for a typical block containing G logic gates is given by: T = K × Gα α~ 0.5 to 0.65 • CPU time for collapsing a large hierarchical circuit is dominated by the time taken to build the structure of the circuit which is proportional to the T 2 (ref: our previous work). VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  15. Hierarchical 8-Bit Ripple Carry Adder Here α ~ 1.0, hence the total collapse time is quadratic in circuit size as observed in our experiment. VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  16. n/2×n/2 Additional Circuitry Hierarchical Array Multiplier n × n multiplier n/2×n/2 n/2×n/2 n/2×n/2 Inputs Outputs prop. to √G prop. to √G Here α ~ 0.5, hence we expect the total collapse time to grow linearly with circuit size. VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  17. Collapse Ratios for Array Multipliers Collapse ratio Total faults 84 726 3762 16,842 71,034 291,546 1,181,082 In hierarchical collapsing, faults in lowest level cells (XOR, full-adder, half-adder) are functionally collapsed. Programs used: 1. Hitec (obtained from Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) 2. Fastest (obtained from Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison) 3. Our program (Auburn Univ.) VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  18. CPU Time Improvement by Hierarchy for Array Multipliers VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

  19. Conclusion • Benefits of hierarchical fault collapsing: • Better (lower) collapse ratios due to functional collapsing of library cells. • Order of magnitude reduction in collapse time. • Possible benefits of smaller fault sets: • Fewer test vectors • Efficient fault simulation • Easier fault diagnosis • Further investigations: • Structural problems (testability measures, static timing analysis, physical design, etc.) may be solved using hierarchy. • Functional problems (ATPG, simulation, etc.) may require new hierarchical algorithms. 128-bit multiplier VDAT: Sandireddy & Agrawal

More Related