1 / 36

Universally Testable AND-EXOR Networks

Universally Testable AND-EXOR Networks. Ugur Kalay, Marek Perkowski, Douglas Hall. Speaker: Alan Mishchenko. Portland State University. Agenda. Introduction desired properties of a test set testing AND and EXOR gates test scheme proposed by Reddy Testing Two-level AND-EXOR Networks

velma
Télécharger la présentation

Universally Testable AND-EXOR Networks

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. Universally Testable AND-EXOR Networks Ugur Kalay, Marek Perkowski, Douglas Hall Speaker: Alan Mishchenko Portland State University

  2. Agenda • Introduction • desired properties of a test set • testing AND and EXOR gates • test scheme proposed by Reddy • Testing Two-level AND-EXOR Networks • implementation of the new testing scheme • experimental results • Testing Multi-Level AND-EXOR Networks • extending the scheme for multi-level circuits • Conclusions and Directions of Future Research

  3. Introduction Requirements for a Test Set • 100% Fault Coverage • no fault simulation • Minimal (as few tests as possible) • shorter testing time • Universal (does not depend on the circuit) • portability of the pattern generator • reduced engineering • Regular (test patterns have certain structure) • simpler pattern generator • Good Scalability • easy pattern generator expandability

  4. Introduction Testing AND gate 1 a 4 2 b 3 c

  5. Introduction Testing EXOR gate a g b

  6. Introduction • Reddy’s Positive Polarity Reed-Muller Testing Scheme Example: f = x1x2 Å x1x3Å x1x2x3 x0 x1 x2 x3 x0 x1 x2 x3 0 0 0 0 - 0 1 1 T1= 0 1 1 1 T2= - 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 - 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 -: don’t care * 100% Single Stuck-at Fault Coverage * Minimal (C = n + 4) * Universal * Regular Patterns * Linear increase * Large expression leads to long EXOR cascade

  7. Introduction • Other Reed-Muller Canonical Forms PPRM (Positive Polarity Reed-Muller) x1x2x3 Å x1x2 FPRM (Fixed Polarity Reed-Muller) x1x2x’3 Å x2x’3 GRM (Generalized Reed-Muller) x1 Å x2 Å x’2x’3 • Free Expression ESOP(EXOR-Sum-of-Products) x1x2x3 Å x’1x’2x’3 ESOP GRM FPRM PPRM

  8. Introduction • Comparison of the Number of Product Terms:

  9. Testing Two-level AND-EXOR Networks * 100% single stuck at faults * Minimal C = n + 6 * Universal * Regular * Linear size increase * Perfect for BIST !

  10. Testing Two-level AND-EXOR Networks Advantages of deterministic testing for ESOP • much shorter test cycle than pseudo-random and pseudo-exhaustive test sets • better fault coverage than a pseudo-random test set • no test point insertion required • a fixed, simple, and easily expandable pattern generator

  11. Testing Two-level AND-EXOR Networks ESOP Deterministic Pattern Generator • Built-in Self-Test Circuitry for ESOP Networks PRPG EDPG Easily Testable 2-level ESOP Network Circuit Under Test MISR

  12. Testing Two-level AND-EXOR Networks • ESOP Deterministic Pattern Generator • Linearly expandable • No initialization seed & circuitry • Much shorter cycle than a PRPG • Comparable size to PRPG (see later)

  13. Testing Two-level AND-EXOR Networks • FSM (Part II) for EDPG

  14. Testing Two-level AND-EXOR Networks Experimental Results • Comparisons of the number of test vectors for 100% single stuck-at fault fault coverage

  15. Testing Two-level AND-EXOR Networks • Comparisons of the number of test vectors for 100% single stuck-at fault fault coverage (cont…)

  16. Testing Two-level AND-EXOR Networks • Area and delay comparisons (LSI Logic Corp., 0.5 micron)

  17. Testing Two-level AND-EXOR Networks • Area comparisons (Cont...)

  18. Testing Two-level AND-EXOR Networks • Multiple Fault Simulation Results

  19. Testing Multi-level AND-EXOR Networks • Two-level implementations • easily testable • large delay • It is possible to factorize the two-level ESOP expression • Universal testing of two-level ESOPs can be adopted for multi-level testing • requires scan registers

  20. Testing Multi-level AND-EXOR Networks Example: The multi-output function, X = acefg Å ace’f’g’ Å ad’efgÅ ad’e’f’g’ Å ajh’i Å ajdÅ b’cefg Å b’ce’f’g’ Å b’d’efg Å b’d’e’f’g’Å b’h’ij Å bdj Y = bg’ Å a’cefg Å a’d’efg Z = adj Å b’dj Å ah’ijÅ b’h’ij can be factorized as, X = U[V(efg Å e’f’g’) Å jW] Y = bg’ Å a’efgV Z = jUW where, U = a Å b’ V = c Å d’ W = h’i Å d

  21. Testing Multi-level AND-EXOR Networks • Implementation without testability improvements

  22. Testing Multi-level AND-EXOR Networks • Inserting Literal Part

  23. Testing Multi-level AND-EXOR Networks • Inserting Check Part

  24. Testing Multi-level AND-EXOR Networks • Creating cascade of EXOR gates at each level

  25. Testing Multi-level AND-EXOR Networks • Identifying ESOP Planes

  26. Testing Multi-level AND-EXOR Networks • Inserting specialized Scan Registers and Scan Path

  27. Testing Two-level AND-EXOR Networks TESTING SCHEME: • Each level is tested separately (can be improved) • ESOP planes of the same level are tested in parallel • Test vectors of the first level are applied from the primary inputs in parallel • Test vectors of the internal levels are applied from the primary inputs and from the scan registers • The bits applied from the scan registers are shifted into the scan path before applied in parallel • The network results are collected by the scan registers and shifted out, and/or observed from the primary outputs

  28. Testing Multi-level AND-EXOR Networks • Implementation of Scan Registers • In normal circuit operation, only one mux delay added • Inserted only at the output of internal ESOP planes

  29. Testing Multi-level AND-EXOR Networks • Scan Register mode of operations

  30. Testing Multi-level AND-EXOR Networks • Scan Register mode of operations

  31. Testing Multi-level AND-EXOR Networks • Scan Register mode of operations

  32. Testing Multi-level AND-EXOR Networks • Critical Path Delay = 2.95 ns vs. 4.33 ns of 2-level impl.

  33. Testing Multi-level AND-EXOR Networks • (4 AND3 + 5 AND2 + 24 EXOR2) gates + 5 SR vs. (17 AND3 + 24 AND2 + 33 EXOR2) gates of 2-level impl.

  34. Future Directions • Developing a universal test set for bridging and stuck-open faults • Developing a factorization/decomposition method targeting EXOR-based multi-level synthesis and universal (deterministic) testability

  35. Advantages and Disadvantages of the New Scheme • Test set is exponentially smaller than a pseudorandom test set and much smaller than algorithmically generated test set for 100% coverage of single stuck-at faults • Properties of deterministic pattern generator for BIST • easy to implement (small area overhead) • does not require seed generation • guarantees 100% testability • Detects significant fraction of multiple stuck-at faults and bridging faults • Cascade of EXOR gates is relatively slow • Area of the AND-EXOR circuit is relatively large • ESOP factorization algorithm is computationally complex

  36. Rereferences [1] Ugur Kalay, Douglas V. Hall, Marek A. Perkowski. “A Minimal Universal Test Set for Self-Test of EXOR-Sum-of-Products Circuits”. IEEE Trans. Comp. Vol. 49, N3, March 1999, pp.267-276.[2] Ugur Kalay, Marek Perkowski. “Rectangle Covering Factorization of EXORs into Scan-Based Levelized Circuits with Universal Test Set”. Proc. of International Workshop on Application of Reed-Muller Expansion in Circuit Design. 1999.

More Related