EDACafe: Aldec Design and Verification

Aldec Design and Verification

Posts Tagged ‘fpga device’

Averting CDC Roadblocks in FPGA Design

Friday, September 19th, 2014

This being my first summer in Las Vegas, it is the first time I’ve experienced the rainy, desert monsoon season and the powerful flash floods it can bring. Last week one of those monsoons, powered by the remnants of Hurricane Norbert, produced floodwaters so strong they completely washed out a section of the I-15 Interstate north of town. With no road for several days, those traveling to and from Utah were forced to take a long detour, winding through nearby towns and wasting precious travel time.

An effective CDC solution for design rule checking can work much the same way, like a straight, clearly marked highway that quickly delivers you directly to your destination. Without such a solution, detouring past the many CDC issues that are becoming more pervasive in FPGA design can quickly become a long, winding road – and an inefficient use of time and resources. I covered some of these CDC nightmares in a previous article, and in this post I’ll share some best practices to help avoid these roadblocks. I’ll also demonstrate how new CDC rule plugins (to be added later this year to ALINT™) can help in the mitigation of such issues.

(more…)

Tags: Aldec, alint, cdc design rule checks, cdc related failure, clock domain crossing issue, do-254, fpga device, fpga-based soc design complexity, linting, metastability issues, multiple clock domains, rmm, simulation, starc
No Comments »

For DO-254 Compliance, Hardware Flies Not Simulations

Thursday, February 20th, 2014

DO-254 defines 3 types of verification methods: Analysis, Test and Review. In order to satisfy the verification objectives defined in DO-254, applicants must formulate a requirements-based verification plan that employs a combination of the three methods.

Analysis vs. Test

A computerized simulation of the hardware item is considered an Analysis. Test is a method that confirms the actual hardware item correctly responds to a series of stimuli. Any inability to verify specific requirements by Test on the device itself must be justified and alternative means of verification must be provided. In DO-254, the hardware test is far more important than the simulation. Certification authorities favor verification by test for official verification credits because of the simple fact that hardware flies, not simulation models. Requirements describing pin-level behavior of the device must be verified by hardware test.