Posts Tagged ‘scoreboard’
Tuesday, December 23rd, 2014
As we predicted, last week’s guest post by Lauro Rizzatti on the origin of the names for some EDA companies and their products proved quite popular. We’ve found that mixing in some general industry news among the highly technical posts keeps our blog more lively and draws new readers, some of whom may tune in for the novelty but stay for the technology. Of course, we always welcome your comments as to whether or not we’re providing the type of content that’s interesting and valuable to you.
One naming story didn’t make it in before the deadline last week. Verific was one of the EDA companies asked about the origin of their name. President and COO Michiel Ligthart passed the question on to founder and CTO Rob Dekker, who said, “That will remain a mystery. But if you really want to know, ask the giraffe.” To find the giraffe, and maybe the answer, check out Verific’s Web site. To find the origin of the name “Breker Verification Systems” just continue reading. We promise to be less mysterious than Rob.
Tuesday, December 16th, 2014
Much as we like informing you about the latest technical advances at Breker and weighing in on various industry topics, we love to take a break every so often and welcome a guest blogger. The EDACafé statistics show that these usually draw very well, and doubtless they attract a varied set of readers. This week we’re delighted to welcome back emulation expert and verification consultant Lauro Rizzatti, who has chosen to provide us with a fun look at the art and science of naming EDA companies and their products:
What’s in a name? Apparently, plenty. Let’s dispense some holiday cheer, kick back and forgo any technical discussion for a look at how a few companies in our industry got their names. Naming companies and products is big business. In fact, an entire industry is devoted to coming up with the perfect name to neatly express a company’s mission and the product portfolio. In some cases, though, companies stick closer to their employees and have contests where they can suggest names. That’s how OneSpin Solutions got its name. An R&D consultant in the U.K. came up with the name and won a case of beer for his efforts.
Wednesday, August 20th, 2014
Several posts back, we introduced the idea of “composing” higher-level verification elements from low-level elements with little or no effort. We discussed how this was not possible with traditional testbench elements such as virtual sequencers and scoreboards. We showed that Breker’s graph-based scenario models can be simply combined from the block level to the cluster level, and from the cluster level to the full-chip level.
Last week, we took the unusual step of announcing a new EDA product via social media rather than a traditional press release. The news about TrekUVM clearly spread; we had a nice spike in blog readership and an even bigger spike in traffic to our Web site. Since our readers have interest in this new product, we’d like to continue talking about it and, specifically, show how it fosters model composition and vertical reuse.
Thursday, August 14th, 2014
In our previous four posts, we have woven a story quite different from the way we’ve talked about Breker and our technology for the past few years. Regular readers know that our focus has been on verifying system-on-chip (SoC) designs by generated multi-threaded, self-verifying C test cases to run on the SoC’s embedded processors. TrekSoC generates these test cases for simulation with RTL or ESL models; TrekSoC-Si generates test cases for emulator, FPGA prototypes, and actual silicon.
The last few posts have pointed out that TrekSoC has had to handle running in a transactional testbench since many test cases send data on or off the chip. We’ve worked hard to ensure that we can integrate easily into testbenches compliant with the Universal Verification Methodology (UVM) standard. Today we leverage this knowledge as we introduce TrekUVM, which generates multi-threaded, self-verifying test cases for a purely transactional UVM testbench.
Thursday, August 7th, 2014
In our last blog post, we worked our way up the conclusion that our TrekSoC product can be used to verify designs that do not contain embedded processors. As we noted, there is not a widely accepted industry term for such devices. For the moment, let’s call them “transactional designs” since the majority of them take transactions in at one end and generate transactions at the other end, sometimes for two very different protocols, and are often bidirectional in nature.
The technological argument is simple. Most SoCs also have I/O ports, both standard buses and proprietary protocols, and TrekSoC must be able to talk to them, coordinate among them, and synchronize their transactions with generated C code running in the embedded processors. A purely transactional chip and testbench form a subset of the challenge for which TrekSoC is designed, so it’s not surprising that we can help. Today’s post fills in some more details.
Wednesday, July 30th, 2014
In our previous two posts, we went into considerable detail on the vertical reuse of verification information from IP block to subsystem to system. We have focused on how graph-based scenario models enable simple composition as you move up the design hierarchy. This type of reuse is not possible with traditional testbench elements such as UVM scoreboards and virtual sequencers. Once again, this is not a slam against the UVM, but rather a basic trait of constrained-random testbenches.
We skimmed over one aspect of vertical reuse: the transition from a “headless” SoC subsystem with no CPU to full-chip simulation with our automatically generated multi-threaded C test cases running on the SoC”s embedded processors. We also skipped the question of whether or not our graph-based scenario models can generate full-chip tests for chips that do not contain processors and are not classified as SoCs. This post links these ideas together and answers the question. (more…)
Tuesday, July 22nd, 2014
In our last post, we went into quite a detailed discussion of how the Accellera Universal Verification Methodology (UVM) has limitations on reuse. Specifically, we showed why it is not possible to compose scoreboards and virtual sequencers together as you move up the design hierarchy from verifying blocks to verifying clusters or complete chips. In the process, information about how connected blocks communicate is lost and must be recreated in the higher-level sequencer.
We also claimed that graph-based scenario models provide more effective reuse, specifically because lower-level graphs can be composed into a higher-level graph as blocks are combined and you move up the chip hierarchy vertically. Block-level graphs compose cluster-level graphs, and cluster-level graphs compose full-chip graphs. In today’s post, we take the same example used last time and show how reuse works with graph-based scenario models rather than pure UVM testbenches.
Thursday, July 17th, 2014
Over the lifetime of The Breker Trekker, we’ve published numerous posts about the inherent benefits of graph-based scenario models for verification. These models allow you to pull on a rope rather than push it. They allow you to begin with the end in mind, solving backwards to determine the necessary inputs. They support advanced verification planning and debug. They make verification modeling more pleasant. They enable both horizontal reuse over the course of a project and vertical reuse from IP block to subsystem to system.
Today we’d like to dig into a particular aspect of vertical reuse that we have not addressed in detail before. One of the goals of verification standards has been to define testbench elements that are reusable. This goal was very much in mind when the Accellera working group standardized the Universal Verification Methodology (UVM). By establishing a standard architecture, nomenclature, and application programming interface (API), UVM components are highly reusable from project to project and even company to company. However, the UVM fails at other forms of reuse.