You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘EDA’ category.

I wasn’t surprised at all with this. To be honest, I did expect this to happen, a long long ago, as early as 2006 or so. In 2009, I was seeing the writing on the wall. So, when my colleague sent the note yesterday afternoon, I was pointing him this blog to him!

Now then, Magma is now part of Synopsys. With Extreme-DA too in the kitty, Synopsys is clearly staying ahead in the EDA leadership. The Analog is where Cadence still have the thrust above them.

I can never have enough of Aart De Geus, my former CEO who still very much remain as my role model. Every time, I hear something from him, it is inspirational and mind blowing. No wonder  Daniel Nenni is damn impressed by Aart’s presentation at the EDA CEO’s meet last month (A detailed account is here in Nenni’s blog). Well, the point Aart stress is the need of collaboration and more so at these times, where the social networking has spurred by the internet shaping. It happens everywhere these days, more so in research. Many years ago, it was a norm to have single author publications, but things have changed off late. Now we have authors collobarate across boundaries and continents, sometime even without seeing them personally. I think this is a good trend. Everybody benefits. Aart ofcourse was stressing that semiconductor industry need no less. Gone are the days, when discussing problems were considered unethical. In a free world, one needs to be fearless in asking questions. After all,  talking is good!

As always, Aart has that super skill to put things in an eye catching manner. Daniel phrased it more aptly in his blog, as follows: “Aart also introduced the word systemic (yes I had to look it up) and a mathematical equation correction: Semiconductor design enabled results are not a SUM but a PRODUCT. As in, if anywhere in the semiconductor design and manufacturing equation there is a zero, the results will be a bad wafer, die, chip, or electronic device, which supports GFI’s vision for a new type of collaboration between partners and customers.” Beautifully put and phrased.

If you have ever listened to Aart’s talks, it is a no brainier to guess the kind of super presentation slides he makes. Here is the one from this talk (Again, please read Daniel’s blog for elaborate discussion on this). The analogy is the task of finding a vegetarian restaurant without the service of a vegan mother in-law. The point is that, at the moment it is still long and expensive a route. We need smarter ways to speedup (and cheaper of course).  I leave you to Daniel’s blog for further read. It indeed is a fabulous read.

One of the term which often resonates inside a semiconductor company is “split lots”. Even though I vaguely knew what it referred to, the haziness around was deeper than the meat of the term. Borrowing Mark Twain, ” So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover”. If not fully,  I should know what I am completely dumb about. In the end it is a fairly simple terminology. Here is what I understood. Most of what I gathered are a result of an information gathering attempt, after repeated bugging on many of my VLSI colleagues coupled with my dump fight with Mr. Google.

Firstly, the hero term, “corner lot”. Corner lot is a term referring to the semiconductor fabrication process corners. Basically, the fabrication parameters are deliberately (and carefully) changed to create extreme corners of a circuit etched in semiconductor wafer. These corner chips are expected to run slower or faster than the nominal (average behaviour of) chip produced in large volume. These corner lot chips also function at lower or higher temperature and voltages than a nominal chip. In short they differ from the typical parts, in terms of performance.

Why do this? Well, the simple answer is: To study the robustness of semiconductor chips mass manufactured out of a complicated fabrication process. When millions of chips are produced at the assembly, statistics come into play (think of the law of large numbers and central limit theorems). In order to ensure that, the manufactured chips function within a certain confidence interval  (within certain variance from the typical parts), it is a practice to fabricate corner lots.

When the volume of samples is large, the manufactured VLSI chips are likely to have performance variation, which admit a Gaussian statistical distribution. The mean of the distribution is the nominal performance of the chips. The three sigma or six sigma performance from the nominal one is that entails upon the corner lot chips. The process parameters are carefully adjusted to the three sigma (or six sigma depending on the need) from the nominal doping concentration in transistors on a silicon wafer. This way, one can deliberately mimick the corner chips which comes out in the volume production. In the manufacturing routine, the variation in performance may occur for many reasons, due to minor changes in temperature or humidity present in the clean room. The variation can also happen with variation in the die position relative to the center of the wafer.

In essence, the corner lots are groups of wafers whose process parameters are carefully adjusted according to chosen extremes. How are these corners produced? In other words, what exactly is changed to carefully achieve these extreme wafers? The exact details are not presented here. From this forum, I infer that the main parameters are 1) the doping concentration. 2) The process variation. 3) The resistance of the actives 4) the properties and thickness of oxides 5) The effective width, length of the stray capacitances etc.

What do we do with these corner lot chips? These extreme corners are characterized at various conditions such as temperature, voltages etc. Once the characterization across these corners is proved to be within accepted limits, then the mass manufactured volume of semiconductor chips falls within the required confidence interval. If all the corner lot chips meet he performance, it is safe to assume that, the huge volume of chips mass manufactured also will fall within the performance limits. That way, humongous saving of time and effort from testing of each chips is achieved.

What are the different process corner types? There is no end to the terminologies here. The nomenclature of the corners are based on two letters (we limit attention to CMOS semiconductors alone). The first letter attributed to the NMOS corner and the second letter for the PMOS. Three types exist in each, namely typical (T), fast (F) and slow (S).Here, slow and fast refers to the speed (mobility) of electrons and holes. In all ${3 \choose 2 }$ (i.e., $6$) corners and they are FF,FS,FT,SS,ST,TT. Among these, FF,SS and  TT are even corners since both PMOS and NMOS are affected equally. The corners FS and SF are skewed. The even corners are expected to function less adversely compared to the skewed corners, for valid reasons.

By the way, the obvious impact of the “corner” feature is the difference in device switching speed, which is related to the mobility of electrons and holes. The mobility of electron is related to the doping concentration (among others). A rough empirical (as shown) model shows the following relationship. The mobility $\mu$ depends also on the impurity and doping concentration $\rho$. The parameters vary, depending on the type of impurity. The three common impurity elements are arsenic, phosphorus, boron (See this link for further details)

$\mu=\mu_{0}+\frac{\mu_{1}-\mu_{0}}{1+\left(\frac{\rho}{\rho_{0}}\right)^{\alpha}}$

where, $\mu_{0}$ and $\mu_{1}$ are the minimum and maximum limits of the mobility. $\alpha$ is a fitting parameter.

In the figure (below), the mobility of electrons due to different impurities and doping concentration are shown. The three commonly used dopants are arsenic, boron and phosphorus.

It is an irony that, the dopant which is deliberately added  to increase conductivity of semiconductor itself slows down the mobility of electrons and holes due to collision (of electrons or holes) with the dopants.

A touch of note on the term mobility too. Broadly speaking, the device switching speed is directly related to the mobility of charged particles (electrons and holes). So, higher mobility somewhat implies that better and faster switching logic etc. When an electric field $E$ is applied to a semiconductor, the electrostatic force will drive the carriers to a constant average velocity $v$, when the carriers scatter though the impurities and lattice vibrations. The ratio of the velocity to the applied electric field is called the mobility $\mu$. That is., $\mu=v/E$. Initially, the velocity increases with increase in electric field and finally reach a saturation velocity at high electric field. When the carriers flow at the surface of semiconductor, additional scattering may occur and that will pull down the mobility.

The kind of interactions which happens at atomic and sub atomic levels within and outside a transistor are way too complex to comprehend (in a blog for sure!). Besides, the millions (and these days billions) of these transistors all must work in tandem to make the system function as desired; And that too, with not a single one failing! To make business, certain economic sense should prevail as well. It goes without saying that, time is extremely critical to get the product into action. The split lot is one heck of a way not to stretch that time window.

(Photo courtesy)