( DAC 09 Item 10 ) ---------------------------------------------- [12/11/09]
Subject: TSMC OIP IPL iPDK iDRC iLVS
TSMC ALPHABET SOUP: In this survey I unexpectedly got a mess of comments
concerning various Three Letter Acronym projects that TSMC was intiating.
I'll be honest. I personally don't follow standards and "initiatives",
so feel free to email me to add your own strong opinions about them.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It's unsettling to see how far TSMC has ventured into EDA, with their Open
Innovation (invasion?) Platform. While technology demands are certainly
increasing the EDA solution complexity at each node, one would hope to see
more collaborative innovation by TSMC with EDA companies, and less efforts
at capturing increasingly bigger pieces of the EDA pie and commoditizing
the rest. This doesn't bode well for the future of EDA market innovation.
Also, there was a noticeable lack of energy in the TSMC booth compared to
past years.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Don't like TSMC OIP. They're choosing who wins and who loses in EDA & IP.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Biggest Lies:
All press releases about 28 nm reference flow for TSMC 28 nm are lies.
The rumored reports from early 40 nm silicon is that TSMC cannot deliver
yielding parts. It's amazing that TSMC orchestrates all the EDA vendors
to make all these claims of advanced flows and none of it has been
tested or works. Call this the "Emperor has no Clothes".
A related lie is the claim of "open" layout verification formats, iDRC
and iLVS. The standard is not published anywhere, not visible on TSMC
website and is not part of any standards body. Open is not open when
controlled by any proprietary organization.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
The Interoperable PDK Libraries (IPL) alliance is a Synopsys-led effort
to nurture development of an Open Access (OA) alternative to Cadence's
proprietary SKILL-based design kits. This is a necessary step to enable
adoption of Synopsys' Custom Designer. IPL also now has the critical
support of TSMC as part of their Open Innovation initiative. After the
28 nm process node, TSMC will only support Open Access interoperable
process design kits (iPDKs). The 65 nm TSMC iPDK is currently in
limited release, and will be in general release in Q4 2009.
During the post-presentation Q&A, Chris Collins of Texas Instruments
challenged the value of interoperable PDKs for IDMs like TI. He saw no
need to move IP from one CAD environment to another, and asked whether
there was any effort to establish interoperability at the foundry level.
The response from Steven Chen of TSMC was that older generation process
nodes have very similar rule sets from the foundries, but that more
state-of-the-art nm processes require tuning to a particular foundry.
- Michael Demler of Digdia
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
1. Most influential in the EDA and users world: TSMC - iPDK revealing
all new technologies and PDK info will come out in a generic language
and platform. Users will have now a few small advantages:
- All vendors can start developing their own PDK at the same time.
- Cadence not longer the first come advantage.
- Due to OA and IPL, users will be able to get the best tool for the
job with all setups being equivalent for a specific process.
2. Real OA interoperability - good for users, bad for Cadence
Saw at different booths Laker from Springsoft exchanging data on the fly
with Pyxis router, with Synopsys AMS designer and their answer to DRD
(from Cadence), Teraroute and Ciranova.
When all the dust settles we may get the best point tool for each job
integrated in OA with iPDK support.
Cadence has one big advantage: token based tools availability in GXL;
so the user can buy tokens and use any tool from the pool. Maybe IPL
companies should start thinking about an alternative...
- Dan Clein, author of "CMOS IC Layout Concepts"
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
IPL/iPDK effort is making progress. The interoperable part won't really
be complete until it works with Cadence, just as well as a Cadence-based
PDK does. But even if the PDK builders have to supply a Cadence-based
PDK as well as an iPDK, it is still better than doing ones for each new
vertical player.
The IPL and Si2 folks are doing a great job with a tough problem.
Thanks Nick, Sumit, et. al.
I do worry about the iDRC and iLVS parts though. I worry that it might
hamstring creative solutions, like the equation-based DRC approach.
That is something to consider.
- Grego Sanguinetti of Tektronix
Subscribe to Newsletter
Send feedback to John... (He likes it!)
Index
Next->Item
|
|
