MY VIEW: with increasing pressure to improve efficiency and reduce development and manufacturing costs (e.g. improve predictability, increase yield ramp, reduce return material costs, ...), design-process information should be quickly and accurately captured for FEEDBACK to improve modeling (device and faults), DRC, etc.
QUESTION 1: With this quote in mind - can we continue viewing design and test communities separately? Should test and diagnostics become an integral part of design and development? If we consider our design and manufacturing flows in the context of theater seating, can or should logic designers remain in one row and test designers in another?
QUESTION 2: If the answer is no, how should EDA companies help merge these communities better? Is this necessary to continue improving FEEDBACK efficiency? Do you agree that FEEDBACK is an important component?
As a DFT engineer (and former test engineer), I've always had better luck the closer I worked with the design team - no question. I agree with your statement of the pressures on the test function (increasing predictability, reduction of the product ramp time, and reduction of manufacturing costs).
However, I'm unsure, so far, just exactly what test information can be fed back that _designers_ can use. When I think of designers - I think of the chip designer, who, in most cases, doesn't do much low-level modeling. This is something that is usually provided by the fab.
Information that I see coming BACK from test is useful for improving the test itself (better DFT), that is until you get to the high volume stage, where diagnostics can play a role in tracking down something amiss in the layout.
So, if I answer your first question NO - then the answer to the second question is, to me, that EDA companies can improve the ease with which one can translate test results to physical and logical design information - and do so in a vendor independent way. It doesn't help to constrain the process through tight intra-vendor tool flows.
Yes, feedback is important.