In reply to ebecheto:
You may also be able to add a user-defined property called "m" with the m-factor value you want on the instance. However, you need to ensure that all parts of the software you're using understand this. If using spectre, then that will netlist the m and will impact the simulation (this is more effecient than using the iterated instance name above, which results in a bigger matrix for the simulator to solve compared with m-factor which are natively handled by each device model, even when specified at higher levels in the hierarchy). For Layout XL, it can handle m-factor. For CDL netlisting (for LVS purposes) you may need to consult solution 11685698 .
In reply to Andrew Beckett:
is there any difference regarding simulation and layout between the notation: instance_name<0:3> and defining m=4 in the instance properties form?
In reply to mate0409:
First, please follow the guidelines and not append to a post that has had no traffic in over 6-months.
Strictly speaking the iterated instance (e.g. I0<0:3>) represents separate devices connected in parallel, and the m-factor is a parameter passed to the simulator to model a single component as multiple devices connected in parallel, without adding further complexity to the netlist or simulation matrix (i.e. in this example 1 device with m=4 is a single device in the netlist but an instance with <0:3> in the name is 4 devices connected in parallel, yielding 4 devices in the netlist). When converting a schematic into a layout both should yield the same number of transistors, so in this regard they are the same, but for simulation I think that the m-factor approach reduces netlist and simulation complexity.
In reply to skillUser:
Hello if M1<0:3> is used , when the device is picked from schematic during layout to connect the device in parallel , the LVS fails , i experienced it , instead leave M1 as it is change the multiplier to 4 , this worked
In reply to Custom IC Desi:
I cannot think of any good reason for this - but quite frankly you've given virtually no information here. You don't say which tools you're using, which version, which LVS tool, etc etc.
And you've appended an existing (old) thread, as has been advised against in the Forum Guidelines.