Note: Last week, I post the first of my Q&A blog post series with ESD Alliance member company executives that appears on the SEMI website. This Q&A features Adnan Hamid of Breker Verification who describes the functional verification space.

Adnan Hamid, CEO, founder and visionary of Breker Verification Systems, an ESD Alliance member based in San Jose, Calif., once described his job in chip design verification at AMD as “breaking things.” When it came to naming his startup, Breaker was a natural choice. After some consideration, the “a” was dropped and the company became Breker. Now Hamid is breaking the most complex semiconductor designs and Breker, moving from a startup to a scale-up company, is a noted part of the functional verification space.

Smith: Why does verification continue to take the most amount of time in a project cycle?

Hamid: The project cycle for semiconductor design has changed. Design abstraction has been raised to a much higher level than the days when developers were connecting logic gates. Today’s developers are typing functions that don’t include lower-level implementation details. Designs incorporate more blocks of reusable IP. Both reduce design time.

Meanwhile, designs are getting bigger with more blocks of IP stitched together, all in need of testing. As design complexity grows, the amount of testing and verification increases as a square of design effort. One block requires one functional verification effort. Four blocks of IP mean up to 16 functional interactions require verification.

While design is moving up the abstraction level, that’s not the case for verification, where plenty of detail must be reimplemented. Verification has certainly evolved, but engineers still think at the level of independent stimulus, response and coverage, driving the need to allocate so much time for verification.

(more…)

Note: This question-and-answer blog post I did with Aki Fujimura, CEO of D2S and a member of the ESD Alliance Governing Council, first appeared on the SEMI website in May. It also kicked-off my Q&A blog post series with member company executives.

A change is underway in the manufacturing sector as the use of curvilinear shapes on photomasks grows, leading to the real possibility of curvilinear shapes in designs. It may just be the start of a revolution away from Manhattan or rectangular shapes to curvilinear shapes. Changing the physical design infrastructure to be curvilinear seems too daunting a task. Are curvilinear shapes in designs a real possibility?

Aki Fujimura

I turned to Aki Fujimura, CEO of D2S and a member of the ESD Alliance Governing Council, to further explain the shape of the future.

Fujimura: Manufactured masks and wafers are all curvilinear, even if the input CAD geometries are rectilinear (shown in Figure 1). It’s always been true that nature can’t make 90-degree turns, so sharp corners were always a matter of how closely you looked. These days, at the leading-edge nodes and their required resolutions, wafers and even masks are all visibly curvilinear as you can see in the graphic on the left in Figure 2.

Since the 1980s, both chip design and chip manufacturing systems have used axis-aligned rectangles, or “Manhattan” geometries, because 1) that was sufficient to design transistors and interconnect for the most part, and 2) CPU-based computer algorithms can be made much more efficient for Manhattan geometries. Curvilinear shapes can be piecewise linear polygons of some resolution, or spline-like formats that are curvilinear at any resolution, or specific curved patterns like circles and ovals.

Figure 1: All shapes on masks and wafers are curvilinear, even if the input geometries are Manhattan. Source: D2S

(more…)