Cadence® system design and verification solutions, integrated under our System Development Suite, provide the simulation, acceleration, emulation, and management capabilities.
System Development Suite Related Products A-Z
Cadence® digital design and signoff solutions provide a fast path to design closure and better predictability, helping you meet your power, performance, and area (PPA) targets.
Full-Flow Digital Solution Related Products A-Z
Cadence® custom, analog, and RF design solutions can help you save time by automating many routine tasks, from block-level and mixed-signal simulation to routing and library characterization.
Overview Related Products A-Z
Driving efficiency and accuracy in advanced packaging, system planning, and multi-fabric interoperability, Cadence® package implementation products deliver the automation and accuracy.
Cadence® PCB design solutions enable shorter, more predictable design cycles with greater integration of component design and system-level simulation for a constraint-driven flow.
An open IP platform for you to customize your app-driven SoC design.
Comprehensive solutions and methodologies.
Helping you meet your broader business goals.
A global customer support infrastructure with around-the-clock help.
24/7 Support - Cadence Online Support
Locate the latest software updates, service request, technical documentation, solutions and more in your personalized environment.
Cadence offers various software services for download. This page describes our offerings, including the Allegro FREE Physical Viewer.
Get the most out of your investment in Cadence technologies through a wide range of training offerings.
This course combines our Allegro PCB Editor Basic Techniques, followed by Allegro PCB Editor Intermediate Techniques.
Virtuoso Analog Design Environment Verifier 16.7
Learn learn to perform requirements-driven analog verification using the Virtuoso ADE Verifier tool.
Exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices.
The community is open to everyone, and to provide the most value, we require participants to follow our Community Guidelines that facilitate a quality exchange of ideas and information.
It's not all about the technlogy. Here we exchange ideas on the Cadence Academic Network and other subjects of general interest.
Cadence is a leading provider of system design tools, software, IP, and services.
I have tried using "add net constraints" command to place one-cold
constraints on a tristate enable bus. In the command line we need to
specify the "net pathname" on which the constraints are to be enforced.
The bus here is 20-bit. How should the net pathname be specified to make this 20-bit bus signals one_hot or one_cold.
The bus was declared as follows:
The command I used was
add net constraints one_hot /ren_bus
What would the above command mean?
Should we not specify all the nets' pathnames on the bus?
Is it sufficient to specify the pathname of one net on the bus?
I could not get much info regarding the functionality of this command. I would be obliged if anyone can throw some light.
Depending on the mode vpx or tcl you are probably pattern matching for 1 or 9. Try executing the command in vpx mode and escape the  with \ and use a * if you want all the bits to be constrainted. or just specifiy the bits your are interested in.
Hi Bryan,I am not sure why my post is looking like that, may be there is a typo error. The command I actually used wasadd net constraints one_hot /ten_busadd net constraints one_hot /ten_bus /ten_bus ...My intention is to constrain the whole 20 bit bus (i.e, ten_bus . . . . . . ten_bus) are to be constrained as one_hot. Only the above commands does not fire any error messages and I dont understand how it works.I am afraid I did not uderstand the two modes tcl and vpx you have mentioned. I did not find any such in Conformal EC. Based on your suggestions I have tried using the following command but encountered an error message saying such a net is not found.add net constraints one_hot /ten_bus\[*\]Hope I make some sense.ThanksPrasad
Hmm . . Interesting.
Designing with tri-states busses is not very common these days. The cap-loads on these (unbuffer'able) wires usually tend to have detrimental ramp times. I have seen people just code it up with muxes and let the synthesis tools do the job. Much easier to verify, time and maintain in general.
Anyways, not getting into the philosophy of tri-state busses vs. muxes, here's a answer for the tool.
You don't need the preceeding forward slash . .
if at the top level . .
SETUP> add net constraint one_hot ten_bus ten_bus ten_bus . . .
SETUP> add net constraint one_hot mod1/bus mod1/bus . .
Once you added your constraints, also do a
SETUP> report net constraint
to make sure that the constraint has been added.
PS: You realize, by adding the one_hot constraint you are just telling Conformal-LEC to ignore the non-one-hot conditions. I am curious, how are you verifying that that this bus really is going to behave as a one-hot and that there would'nt be any contention between the tri-state nets? Is it Simulation?
-- Resending reply with hopefully fixing formatting problem --Designing with tri-states busses is not very common these days. The cap-loads on these (unbuffer'able) wires usually tend to have detrimental ramp times. I have seen people just code it up with muxes and let the synthesis tools do the job. Much easier to verify, time and maintain in general. Anyways, not getting into the philosophy of tri-state busses vs. muxes, here's a answer for the tool. You don't need the preceeding forward slash.If at the top levelSETUP> add net constraint one_hot ten_bus ten_bus ten_bus If hiearchical SETUP> add net constraint one_hot mod1/bus?] mod1/bus?]Once you added your constraints, also do a SETUP> report net constraint to make sure that the constraint has been added. regards, Masood PS: You realize, by adding the one_hot constraint you are just telling Conformal-LEC to ignore the non-one-hot conditions. I am curious, how are you verifying that that this bus really is going to behave as a one-hot and that there would'nt be any contention between the tri-state nets? Is it Simulation?
I have come to know about the tcl and vpx modes and also discovered that I was running the command in vpx mode only.
Hi Masood,I have used the following command:add net constraints one_hot U9/ZN[nineteen] -bothWhat would the above command mean?After adding this command to the conformal script I found that the tool reports equivalece of the two designs under consideration. I think I should mention all the 20 net_pathnames for the tool to constrain all the bits of the bus as one_hot. Albeit, it looks like the above command has the same functionality. I wanted to know if I am correct in taking such a conclusion.I can put an assertion in the code to ensure that the bus is one_hot, though I am not simulating as of now.ThanksPrasad.P.S: I have used words instead of numerals hoping to overcome some formatting problem while I am posting in this forum. The numerals are being replaced with weird special characters.
Hi Prasad,Add the net contraint only one side of the design, -revised preferablyAnd as said do all in one line . . SETUP> add net constaint one_hot ZN[zero] ZN[one] ZN[two] . . . -revisedConstraints are essentially assumptions that the Equivalence Checker can use to "ignore" Non-equivalences.For eg.if you apply a one-hot on revised Golden: net1, net2, net3Revised: net1, net2, net3Then only conditions where revised is 001, 010, 100 will be honored.A condition such as (G)110 and (R)011 will be ignored even if it isnon-equivalent because of the constraint.-- MasoodPS: You better simulate the one_hot in a simulator. Also if you haveconformal - ASIC license, you may be able to actually verify thatyour one-hot bus is truly a one-hot formally without vectors. You can invoke that tool byunix> lec -verifyFrom there it is pretty intuitive with a check called bus contention.PPS: There are experts in the support channel who can guide you withthis. You may want to file an SR.
Hi Masood,May i know the reason for your preference of constraining the revised alone or only on one side. Thanks for your valuable inputs. I am trying out with the lec -verify feature.Prasad.
I believe in VPX mode you don't need to escape the [ with the \ command. The wildcarding should work. That siad I have filed several issues over many years trying to get wildcarding to work. You have have to leave off the brackets and put the wildcard at the end of the signal name. Yes I know this might possible match too much and is the basis of the issues I have filed over the years.I am not as up on VPX mode anymore as I use TCL mode exclusively.