Verification Academy

Search form

My Account Menu

  • Register
  • Log In
  • Topics
  • Courses
  • Forums
  • Patterns Library
  • Cookbooks
  • Events
  • More
  • All Topics
    The Verification Academy offers users multiple entry points to find the information they need. One of these entry points is through Topic collections. These topics are industry standards that all design and verification engineers should recognize. While we continue to add new topics, users are encourage to further refine collection information to meet their specific interests.
    • Languages & Standards

      • Portable Test and Stimulus
      • Functional Safety
      • Design & Verification Languages
    • Methodologies

      • UVM - Universal Verification Methodology
      • UVM Framework
      • UVM Connect
      • FPGA Verification
      • Coverage
    • Techniques & Tools

      • Verification IQ
      • Verification IP
      • Static-Based Techniques
      • Simulation-Based Techniques
      • Planning, Measurement, and Analysis
      • Formal-Based Techniques
      • Debug
      • Acceleration
  • All Courses
    The Verification Academy is organized into a collection of free online courses, focusing on various key aspects of advanced functional verification. Each course consists of multiple sessions—allowing the participant to pick and choose specific topics of interest, as well as revisit any specific topics for future reference. After completing a specific course, the participant should be armed with enough knowledge to then understand the necessary steps required for maturing their own organization’s skills and infrastructure on the specific topic of interest. The Verification Academy will provide you with a unique opportunity to develop an understanding of how to mature your organization’s processes so that you can then reap the benefits that advanced functional verification offers.
    • Universal Verification Methodology (UVM)

      • Introduction to UVM
      • UVM Basics
      • Advanced UVM
      • UVM Connect
      • UVM Debug
      • UVMF - One Bite at a Time
    • Featured Courses

      • Introduction to ISO 26262
      • Introduction to DO-254
      • Clock-Domain Crossing Verification
      • Portable Stimulus Basics
      • Power Aware CDC Verification
      • Power Aware Verification
      • SystemVerilog OOP for UVM Verification
    • Additional Courses

      • Assertion-Based Verification
      • An Introduction to Unit Testing with SVUnit
      • Evolving FPGA Verification Capabilities
      • Metrics in SoC Verification
      • SystemVerilog Testbench Acceleration
      • Testbench Co-Emulation: SystemC & TLM-2.0
      • Verification Planning and Management
      • VHDL-2008 Why It Matters
    • Formal-Based Techniques

      • Formal Assertion-Based Verification
      • Formal-Based Technology: Automatic Formal Solutions
      • Formal Coverage
      • Getting Started with Formal-Based Technology
      • Handling Inconclusive Assertions in Formal Verification
      • Sequential Logic Equivalence Checking
    • Analog/Mixed Signal

      • AMS Design Configuration Schemes
      • Improve AMS Verification Performance
      • Improve AMS Verification Quality
  • All Forum Topics
    The Verification Community is eager to answer your UVM, SystemVerilog and Coverage related questions. We encourage you to take an active role in the Forums by answering and commenting to any questions that you are able to.
    • UVM Forum

      • Active Questions
      • Solutions
      • Replies
      • No Replies
      • Search
      • UVM Forum
    • SystemVerilog Forum

      • Active Questions
      • Solutions
      • Replies
      • No Replies
      • Search
      • SystemVerilog Forum
    • Coverage Forum

      • Active Questions
      • Solutions
      • Replies
      • No Replies
      • Search
      • Coverage Forum
    • Additional Forums

      • Announcements
      • Downloads
      • OVM Forum
  • Patterns Library
    The Verification Academy Patterns Library contains a collection of solutions to many of today's verification problems. The patterns contained in the library span across the entire domain of verification (i.e., from specification to methodology to implementation—and across multiple verification engines such as formal, simulation, and emulation).
    • Implementation Patterns

      • Environment Patterns
      • Stimulus Patterns
      • Analysis Patterns
      • All Implementation Patterns
    • Specification Patterns

      • Occurrence Property Patterns
      • Order Property Patterns
      • All Specification Patterns
    • Pattern Resources

      • Start Here - Patterns Library Overview
      • Whitepaper - Taking Reuse to the Next Level
      • Verification Horizons - The Verification Academy Patterns Library
      • Contribute a Pattern to the Library
  • All Cookbooks
    Find all the methodology you need in this comprehensive and vast collection. The UVM and Coverage Cookbooks contain dozens of informative, executable articles covering all aspects of UVM and Coverage.
    • UVM Cookbook

      • UVM Basics
      • Testbench Architecture
      • DUT-Testbench Connections
      • Configuring a Test Environment
      • Analysis Components & Techniques
      • End Of Test Mechanisms
      • Sequences
      • The UVM Messaging System
      • Other Stimulus Techniques
      • Register Abstraction Layer
      • Testbench Acceleration through Co-Emulation
      • Debug of SV and UVM
      • UVM Connect - SV-SystemC interoperability
      • UVM Versions and Compatibility
      • UVM Cookbook
    • Coding Guidelines & Deployment

      • Code Examples
      • UVM Verification Component
      • Package/Organization
      • Questa/Compiling UVM
      • SystemVerilog Guidelines
      • SystemVerilog Performance Guidelines
      • UVM Guidelines
      • UVM Performance Guidelines
    • Coverage Cookbook

      • Introduction
      • What is Coverage?
      • Kinds of Coverage
      • Specification to Testplan
      • Testplan to Functional Coverage
      • Bus Protocol Coverage
      • Block Level Coverage
      • Datapath Coverage
      • SoC Coverage Example
      • Requirements Writing Guidelines
      • Coverage Cookbook
  • All Events
    No one argues that the challenges of verification are growing exponentially. What is needed to meet these challenges are tools, methodologies and processes that can help you transform your verification environment. These recorded seminars from Verification Academy trainers and users provide examples for adoption of new technologies and how to evolve your verification process.
    • Featured & On-Demand

      • Continuous Integration - March 28th
      • SystemVerilog Assertions
      • SoC Design & Functional Safety Flow
      • 2022 Functional Verification Study
      • Design Solutions as a Sleep Aid
      • CDC and RDC Assist
      • Formal and the Next Normal
      • Protocol and Memory Interface Verification
      • Webinar Calendar
    • On-Demand Library

      • Practical Flows for Continuous Integration
      • Lint vs Formal AutoCheck
      • The Three Pillars of Intent-Focused Insight
      • Formal Verification Made Easy
      • Fix FPGA Failures Faster
      • HPC Protocols & Memories
      • FPGA Design Challenges
      • High Defect Coverage
      • The Dog ate my RTL
      • Questa Lint & CDC
      • Complex Safety Architectures
      • Data Independence and Non-Determinism
      • Hierarchical CDC+RDC
      • All On-Demand Recordings
    • Recording Archive

      • Aerospace & Defense Tech Day
      • Exhaustive Scoreboarding
      • Improving Initial RTL Quality
      • CDC Philosophy
      • Hardware Emulation Productivity
      • Visualizer Debug Environment
      • Preparing for PCIe 6.0: Parts I & II
      • Automotive Functional Safety Forum
      • Siemens EDA Functional Verification
      • Improving Your SystemVerilog & UVM Skills
      • All Webinar Topics
    • Conferences & WRG

      • Industry Data & Surveys
      • DVCon 2023
      • DVCon 2022
      • DVCon 2021
      • Osmosis 2022
      • All Conferences
    • Siemens EDA Learning Center

      • SystemVerilog Fundamentals
      • SystemVerilog UVM
      • EDA Xcelerator Academy(Learning Services) Verification Training, Badging and Certification
      • View all Learning Paths
  • About Verification Academy
    The Verification Academy will provide you with a unique opportunity to develop an understanding of how to mature your organization's processes so that you can then reap the benefits that advanced functional verification offers.
    • Blog & News

      • Verification IQ
      • Verification Horizons Blog
      • Technical Resources
    • Verification Horizons Publication

      • Verification Horizons - March 2023
      • Verification Horizons - December 2022
      • Verification Horizons - July 2022
      • Issue Archive
    • About Us

      • Verification Academy Overview
      • Subject Matter Experts
      • Academy News
      • Contact Us
    • Training

      • Learning @OneGlance (PDF)
      • SystemVerilog & UVM Classes
      • Siemens EDA Classes
  • Home
  • Verification Horizons
  • June 2015 | Volume 11, Issue 2

June 2015 | Volume 11, Issue 2

Verification Horizons - Tom Fitzpatrick, Editor

Verification Horizons Complete Issue:

  • Download - 14.3 MB

Welcome to our once-again-super-sized DAC summer edition!

by Tom Fitzpatrick, Editor and Verification Technologist, Mentor Graphics Corporation

Now that it's May here in New England, I'm sure you'll all be happy to know that, even after our record-setting snowfall this past winter, there is, in fact, no more snow on my lawn. When this statement became a fact is still a source of amazement, but I'm just glad the snow is gone.

Of course, that means it's time to get the lawn in shape, and I'm faced with the unfortunate situation that my 17-year-old son is too busy (with homework and standardized tests) to be of much help these days. Still, I'd rather ride the tractor than shovel snow any day, so I can't really complain. Speaking of greener grass, the lawn is lush on this issue's side of the fence.

Verifying Airborne Electronics Hardware: Automating the Capture of Assertion Verification Results for DO-254

by Vipul Patel, ASIC Engineer, eInfochips

This article focuses on Assertion-Based Verification (ABV) methodology and discusses automation techniques for capturing verification results to accelerate the verification process. Also, it showcases how requirement traceability is maintained with use of assertions to comply with the mandatory DO-254 standards.

When developing airborne electronics hardware (AEH), documenting the evidence-linking verification results to requirements is an important compliance criterion for satisfying regulatory guidance for certification. Section 6.2 of the RTCA/DO-254 “Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware” defines verification processes and the subsequent objectives that are required for safety assurance and correctness, as given below:

* Section 6.2.1(1) – Evidence is provided that the hardware implementation meets the requirements.
* Section 6.2.1(2) – Traceability is established between hardware requirements, the implementation, and the verification procedures and results.
* Section 6.2.1(3) – Acceptance test criteria are identified, can be implemented, and are consistent with the hardware design assurance levels of the hardware functions.

DO-254 Testing of High Speed FPGA Interfaces

by Nir Weintroub, CEO, and Sani Jabsheh, Verisense

As the complexity of electronics for airborne applications continues to rise, an increasing number of applications need to comply with the RTCA DO-254/ Eurocae ED-80 standard for certification of complex electronic hardware, which includes FPGAs and ASICs.

The DO-254 standard requires that for the most stringent levels of compliance (levels A and B), the verification process for FPGAs and ASICs must measure and record the verification coverage by running tests on the device in its operational environment. What this essentially means is that verification engineers and designers need to compare the behavior of the physical outputs of the device on the hardware device pins with their corresponding RTL model simulation results. In addition, the standard requires running robustness tests on the interface pins. The robustness testing is accomplished by forcing abnormal or slightly out- of-spec behavior on the device and ensuring that it is able to deal with this behavior without catastrophic results.

Formal and Assertion-Based Verification of MBIST MCPs

by Ajay Daga, CEO, FishTail Design Automation, and Benoit Nadeau-Dostie, Chief Architect, Mentor Graphics

Built-In Self-Test (BIST) is widely used to test embedded memories. This is necessary because of the large number of embedded memories in a circuit which could be in the thousands or even tens of thousands. It is impractical to provide access to all these memories and apply a high quality test. The memory BIST (MBIST) tool reads in user RTL, finds memories and clock sources, generates a test plan that the user can customize if needed, generates MBIST IP, timing constraints, simulation test benches and manufacturing test patterns adapted to end-user circuit.

Multi-cycle paths (MCPs) are used to improve the performance of the circuit without having to use expensive pipelining which would be required when testing memories at Gigahertz frequencies. Most registers of the MBIST controller only update every two clock cycles. Only a few registers need to operate at full speed to perform the test operations. The architecture takes advantage of the fact that most memory test algorithms require complex operations such as Read-Modify-Write.

Starting Formal Right from Formal Test Planning

by Jin Zhang, Senior Director of Marketing & GM Asia Pacific, and Vigyan Singhal, President & CEO, OSKI Technology

Planning is key to success in any major endeavor, and the same is true for meaningful formal applications. End-to- End formal, with the goal of achieving formal sign-off, is a task that usually takes weeks if not months to complete, depending on the size and complexity of the design under test (DUT). Dedicating time and effort to planning is of utmost importance. While most formal engineers and their managers understand the need for formal planning, they do not know how to conduct thorough planning to arrive at a solid formal test plan for execution.

Reuse MATLAB® Functions and Simulink® Models in UVM Environments with Automatic SystemVerilog DPI Component Generation

by Tao Jia, HDL Verifier Development Lead, and Jack Erickson, HDL Product Marketing Manager, MathWorks

The growing sophistication of verification environments has increased the amount of infrastructure that verification teams must develop. For instance, UVM environments offer scalability and flexibility at the cost of upfront efforts to create the UVM infrastructure, bus-functional models, coverage models, scoreboard, and test sequences.

Engineers everywhere use MATLAB and Simulink to design systems and algorithms. Math-intensive algorithms, such as signal and image processing, typically begin with MATLAB language-based design. Complex systems, such as control and communications, typically begin with Simulink and Model-Based Design. At this early stage, engineers create behavioral models of the algorithms and subsystems along with system environment models and test sequences to validate the design given the requirements. The rest of this article will refer to this stage as "system design and verification." At the end of this stage, the detailed requirements are captured in a paper specification for the hardware and software teams.

Intelligent Testbench Automation with UVM and Questa®

by Marcela Simkova and Neil Hand, VP of Marketing and Business Development Codasip Ltd.

This article describes an automated approach to improve design coverage by utilizing genetic algorithms added to standard UVM verification environments running in Questa® from Mentor Graphics®. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach, the article will utilize real-world data from the verification of a 32-bit ASIP processor from Codasip®.

Application-specific instruction-set processors (ASIP) have become an integral part of embedded systems, as they can be optimized for high performance, small area, and low power consumption by changing the processor’s instruction- set to complement the class of target applications. This ability makes them an ideal fit for many applications — including the Internet of Things (IoT) and medical devices — that require advanced data processing with extremely low power.

Unit Testing Your Way to a Reliable Testbench

by Neil Johnson, Principal Consultant, XtremeEDA, and Mark Glasser, Principal Engineer, Verification Architect, NVIDIA

Writing tests, particularly unit tests, can be a tedious chore. More tedious - not to mention frustrating - is debugging testbench code as project schedules tighten and release pressure builds. With quality being a non-negotiable aspect of hardware development, verification is a pay-me-now or pay-me-later activity that cannot be avoided. Building and running unit tests has a cost, but there is a greater cost of not unit testing. Unit testing is a proactive pay now technique that helps avoid running up debts that become much more expensive to pay later.

Despite academics and software developers advocating the practice of writing the test suite before you write the code, this is rarely, if ever done by hardware developers or verification engineers. This applies to design and it is also typical in verification where dedicating time to test testbench code is not generally part of a verification project plan. As a result, testbench bugs discovered late in the process can be very expensive to fix and add uncertainty to a project plan. Even worse, they can mask RTL bugs making it possible for them to reach customers undetected.

Hardware Emulation: Three Decades of Evolution – Part II

by Dr. Lauro Rizzatti, Verification Consultant, Rizzatti LLC

In the second decade, the hardware emulation landscape changed considerably with a few mergers and acquisitions and new players entering the market. The hardware emulators improved notably via new architectures based on custom ASICs. The supporting software improved remarkably and new modes of deployment were devised. The customer base expanded outside the niche of processors and graphics, and hardware emulation slowly attracted more and more attention.

While commercial FPGAs continued to be used in mainstream emulation systems of the time (i.e., Quickturn, Zycad and IKOS) four companies — three startups plus IBM — pioneered different approaches.

IBM continued the experimentation it started a decade earlier with the YSE and EVE. By 1995, it had perfected its technology, based on arrays of simple Boolean processors that processed a design data structure stored in a large memory via a scheduling mechanism. The technology was now applicable to emulation. While IBM never launched a commercial product, in 1995 it signed an exclusive OEM agreement with Quickturn that gave the partner the right to deploy the technology in a new emulation product.

Accelerating RTL Simulation Techniques

by Lior Grinzaig, Verification Engineer, Marvell Semiconductor Ltd.

Long simulation run times are a bottleneck in the verification process.

A lengthy delay between the start of a simulation run and the availability of simulation results has several implications:

* Code development (design and verification) and the debug process are slow and clumsy. Some scenarios are not feasible to verify on a simulator and must be verified on faster platforms — such as an FPGA or emulator, which have their own weaknesses.
* Long turn-around times.
* Engineers must make frequent context-switches, which can reduce efficiency and lead to mistakes.

Coding style has a significant effect on simulation run times. Therefore it is imperative that the code writer examine his/her code, not only by asking the question "does the code produce the desired output?" but also "is the code economical, and if not, what can be done to improve it?" The following discussion presents some useful methods for analyzing code based on these questions.

Emulation Based Approach to ISO 26262 Compliant Processors Design

by David Kaushinsky, Application Engineer, Mentor Graphics

All types of electronic systems can malfunction due to external factors. The main sources causing faults within electronic components are radiation, electromigration and electromagnetic interference. The evaluation of a fault- tolerant system is a complex task that requires the use of different levels of modeling. Compared with other possible approaches such as proving or analytical modeling, fault injection is particularly attractive.

Fault injection is a key requirement of functional safety standards like the Automotive ISO 26262 and is highly recommended during hardware integration tests to verify the completeness and correctness of the safety mechanisms implementation with respect to the hardware safety requirements.

This article reviews the use of processors in the automotive industry, the origin of faults in processors, architectures of fault tolerant processors and techniques for processor verification with fault injection.

Resolving the Limitations of a Traditional VIP for PHY Verification

by Amit Tanwar and Manoj Manu, Questa VIP Engineering, Mentor Graphics

Because of the complexities involved in the entire design verification flow, a traditional Verification IP (VIP) tends to overlook the subtle aspects of the physical layer (PHY) verification, often leading to costly debug phases later in the verification cycle.

In addition, because of the several possible topologies in a PHY implementation, completely exercising the role and related functionality of a PHY becomes challenging for a traditional VIP.

Furthermore, the analog signaling and the homologous functionality of the physical layer in serial protocols, led the industry to define a common PHY that multiple protocols could use and that segregates the PHY logic from that of the general ASIC. One such common PHY is used in PCI Express, USB 3.0 and 3.1, and SATA protocols. Similarly, M-PHY is used in SSIC, M-PCIe, and LLI protocols, among others.

This article describes the limitations of a traditional VIP for PHY verification, which can typically be resolved using an exclusive PHY verification kit.

← Back to Verification Horizons

Siemens Digital Industries Software

Siemens Digital Industries Software

#TodayMeetsTomorrow

Portfolio

  • Cloud
  • Mendix
  • Electronic Design Automation
  • MindSphere
  • Design, Manufacturing and PLM Software
  • View all Portfolio

Explore

  • Community
  • Blog
  • Online Store

Siemens

  • About Us
  • Careers
  • Events
  • News and Press
  • Customer Stories
  • Partners
  • Trust Center

Contact

  • VA - Contact Us
  • PLM - Contact Us
  • EDA - Contact Us
  • Worldwide Offices
  • Support Center
  • Give us Feedback
© Siemens 2023
Terms of Use Privacy Statement Cookie Statement DMCA