Posts

Accelerating Analog Design and Migration at the Functional Level

/in , /by
ramyiskanderDR. RAMY ISKANDER,
CEO of Intento Design, discusses
the use of  Si2 OpenAccess
in an automated, analog design flow.

Click here to see the video.

– 

Leveraging OpenAccess to Bridge Gaps in System Co-Design

/in , /by
Mandavia_200sqHUMAIR MANDAVIA,
chief strategy officer at Zuken,
discusses how Si2 OpenAccess
improves interoperability
among different EDA tools.

Click here to see the video.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Si2 University Partner Network Adds New Member

/in , , /by

Jeshairaj Thakaria is the newest member of the Si2 University Partner Network. The network connects qualified engineering student-partners to their future employers in a program that offers real-world, electronic design automation job experience.

A graduate student at the University of Florida Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Jeshairaj is majoring in digital and mixed signal IC design. His work for Si2 focuses on redeveloping the oaDebug tool set, which gives developers insight into the Si2 OpenAccess database during the development process. oaDebug and oaDiff are the primary products used to develop OpenAccess applications.

For more information on the Si2 University Partner Network visit https://si2.org/si2-eda-university-partner-network/

Matt Wheaton Joins Si2 for OpenAccess Support

/in , /by

Matthew Wheaton, a software engineering professional whose experience includes more than 12 years at IBM, has joined Si2 as a senior programmer. His first responsibility is to take the lead on system builds and membership support of the Si2 OpenAccess database and scripting extensions, including oaScript.

While at IBM, Wheaton specialized in build, test, and delivery of EDA tools before moving into Front End tool development and management of the primitives library.

He has already built and configured a number of Linux hosts to compile oaScript and oaxPop, which were used to deliver the latest oaScript update (v.3.3).

A native of New England, Wheaton has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Computer Science from Western Connecticut State University.

Committee Corner: Gregory Schaeffer, IBM

/in , /by

As the co-chair of the Si2 OpenAccess Change Team, Gregory Schaeffer will attest that change in the technical standards world, though critical, is anything but easy.

Schaeffer is a senior software engineer at IBM, his only employer since earning an MS in Computer Science from Case Western University.

A native of Elizabethtown, Pa., Schaeffer said his biggest challenge is addressing divergent interests of Change Team members. “We have 12 people on our team, and require a two-thirds vote to adopt changes.  Some members want to focus on improving mature standards while others see the need to move more quickly into new standards for emerging technologies.”

It’s a tenuous balancing act that he confronts with co-chair Michaela Guiney of Cadence Design Systems

Schaeffer joined the Change Team last year and sees the personal and professional benefits of participation.  “IBM sees value on external visibility at this level.  Plus, it’s fun getting to know people who share some of the same technical challenges.

Design Agility: The Solution to EDA Commoditization

/in , /by
By Marshall Tiner
Director, Production Standards
In a recent article, Randy Smith, vice president of Marketing for Sonics, pinpointed a problem confronting the EDA industry.
“The difference between IP and EDA doesn’t matter much anymore. It is all about design acceleration. “Where can we make a difference?” he added.
“The physical design flow has been commoditized at this point. It is hard to come up with anything that will make a big enough difference that you can add value. For system-level design, there is still plenty of room, but you will have to come up with some smart ideas.”
Moore says Moore’s law is “dead.”  Can we bet on technology not progressing? Or do we become agile and embrace the coming changes?
This problem is not unique to the EDA industry. It occurred in semiconductor manufacturing, computing and even
in software. It starts with new technology that rapidly improves over time, leading to cost competition and then commoditization. However, in every case, one important solution in these other industries had one similarity: standardization.
Semiconductor manufacturing went from high-volume, low mix to more complex high-mix, low-volume. Autonomously functioning agile manufacturing cells or modules were developed. The leverage point was standardization. Anything standardized could be reused, thus reducing costs.
Computers shrank from room-sized machines down to systems that were invisible to the human eye. With the free, standardized Linux platform we now reuse computers that run collectively as a “cloud.”
Software evolved from huge programs to collections of smaller, object-oriented languages that are easily shared and reused (yes, a type of standard). Programs can be quickly created using others as a foundation.
How does this apply to EDA? The total physical design cycle must be shortened to match current needs. We can’t redevelop entire checking decks between design passes as new rules are defined. Maybe we need a faster means of implementing new rules.
How can the EDA industry attain the agility it needs to grow?  The answer again focuses partially on a standard, one that supports agile rule checking-Si2 OpenAccess. Our oaScript, an extension to OpenAccess, allows writing rule checks quickly in a variety of languages, including perl, python, ruby and tcl.
Why restrict the rule authorship to EDA? Spread it around and do it faster. What if the technology team could code the rules? Or the physical designer?  Or enlist the program manager who set that ridiculous release date in the first place.
So, why not join the Si2 OpenAccess Coalition and use your company’s vote to drive the future the way you want it? Showcase and contribute some of your best “glue” code. Hear other solutions from the rest of the IC design community.

Why has IC physical design become commoditized? As time scales shrink and complexity increases, physical design cycles rely more on verification. A comprehensive set of rules need time to develop, and the technology changes occur simultaneously with the design. What’s needed is agility to repeat the design cycle quickly as new rules are invented.