2020-02-03 10:44:15 -06:00
|
|
|
.. -*- Mode: rst -*-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===============
|
|
|
|
Symbolic Layout
|
|
|
|
===============
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:slug: symbolic-layout
|
|
|
|
:date: 2019-12-27 16:00
|
|
|
|
:author: Jean-Paul Chaput
|
|
|
|
:Contact: <Jean-Paul.Chaput@lip6.fr>
|
|
|
|
:Version: June 4, 2019 (jpc)
|
|
|
|
:category: Symbolic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. include:: ../../etc/definitions.rst
|
|
|
|
|
2023-08-01 08:43:21 -05:00
|
|
|
.. |symbolic_1| image:: {static}/images/symbolic-layout/symbolic-1.png
|
2020-02-03 10:44:15 -06:00
|
|
|
:alt: Symbolic, Mead & Conway
|
|
|
|
:align: middle
|
|
|
|
:width: 80%
|
|
|
|
|
2023-08-01 08:43:21 -05:00
|
|
|
.. |symbolic_2| image:: {static}/images/symbolic-layout/symbolic-2.png
|
2020-02-03 10:44:15 -06:00
|
|
|
:alt: Symbolic, Alliance
|
|
|
|
:align: middle
|
|
|
|
:width: 80%
|
|
|
|
|
2023-08-01 08:43:21 -05:00
|
|
|
.. |rds_1| image:: {static}/images/symbolic-layout/rds-1.png
|
2020-02-03 10:44:15 -06:00
|
|
|
:alt: Symbolic to Real translation
|
|
|
|
:align: middle
|
|
|
|
:width: 80%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. contents::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making an |ASIC|
|
|
|
|
================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This section is a short introduction to the terminology of |ASIC| making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The end product of a |VLSI| design flow is basically a *drawing*. This drawing
|
|
|
|
is what you send to the foundry in order to fabricate it. Usually, this is a
|
|
|
|
file in |GDS| format, which contains a lot of geometric shapes expressed in
|
|
|
|
microns or nanometers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This drawing is called a **layout**.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the layout, each geometrical shape is associated with a *layer*. For example,
|
|
|
|
there are layers for each metal level like ``metal1`` or ``metal2``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Layers** tells in what *material* you want the geometrical shape to be build.
|
|
|
|
(this is an oversimplification)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All shapes in a given layer constitute a **mask**, analogous to an overlay in
|
|
|
|
classical drawing programs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The foundry will not accept *any* layout. In order to be successfully fabricated,
|
|
|
|
all the shapes of a layout must respect a set of rules. For example, to ensure
|
|
|
|
that after fabrication, two separated shapes of ``metal1`` are indeed separated,
|
|
|
|
they must respect a *minimal distance*, for example 0.5µ. This special set of
|
|
|
|
rules is called the **Design rules**.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Design Rules** gives many insigth about a process and is subjected to |NDA|.
|
|
|
|
For the same reason your whole layout covered by it, meaning that you cannot
|
|
|
|
publish it in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Symbolic Layout
|
|
|
|
===============
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Symbolic Layout** is a way of making the layout of a chip independant of a given
|
|
|
|
technological node. This technique is based on the observation that, between two
|
|
|
|
processes in the same technological node (say, for example, 350nm of |AMS| and
|
|
|
|
350nm of |TSMC|), there are only minors rules variations. Moreover, even between
|
|
|
|
different nodes (350nm |AMS| and 180nm |AMS|), the *shrink rate* of the various
|
|
|
|
layers of the process are the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Symbolic layout consist of drawing in a blank unit called the |lambda| (lambda).
|
|
|
|
Then, the value of the |lambda| is calculated for the target technology so that the
|
|
|
|
layout fit it's particular design rules. This approach was first introduced by
|
|
|
|
|Mead| & |Conway| [VLSISYS]_.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As |Coriolis| can manage both symbolic and real layers in the same design,
|
|
|
|
it uses the following convention for layer naming:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ``METAL1`` : uppercase named layers are for *symbolic layers*. Those layer
|
|
|
|
shapes will change when mapped toward a real technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ``metal1`` : lowercase named layers are for *real layers*. THeir shapes will
|
|
|
|
be exported exacltly *as is*.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|symbolic_1|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The symbolic layout of |Alliance|, refine this approach, by adding width and cap
|
|
|
|
extentions factors to allow a closer fitting of the technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|symbolic_2|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Symbolic To Real Translation
|
|
|
|
============================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contrary to commercial design flows wich directly creates a layout for a target
|
|
|
|
node, our flow create a *symbolic layout* which you have to translate into one
|
|
|
|
on the target process. This is done with the |s2r| tool which stands for
|
|
|
|
"Symbolic To Real". And this tool must have a configuration file for the
|
|
|
|
intended technology (this is the ``.rds`` file). As the ``.rds`` file is
|
|
|
|
written using the **Design Rules** so is under |NDA|. Writting the ``.rds``
|
|
|
|
to get the best fit for target process is still largely a craft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|rds_1|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pros & Cons of Symbolic Layout
|
|
|
|
==============================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* As it cannot make use of the finest features of the target process, there is an
|
|
|
|
unvoidable loss of area. That is, the layout once translated will be bigger than
|
|
|
|
if it has been done directly. The loss is below 10%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pros:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* You do not have to build you chip for each target process. You only need to write
|
|
|
|
a new ``.rds`` file.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Symbolic layout is not subjected to |NDA|, so it can be freely published and
|
|
|
|
exchanged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Note About Analog Designs
|
|
|
|
===========================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The symbolic layout approach is not suited for analog designs. Analog designs are
|
|
|
|
closely related to the target process. So we developped a different methodology
|
|
|
|
to ensure portability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. [VLSISYS] |Mead|, Carver; |Conway|, Lynn (1980). Introduction to VLSI systems.
|
|
|
|
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0201043580. OCLC 4641561
|