Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3
  • Subscribers 124
  • Views 2137
  • Members are here 0
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

DRC DIVA. How can I solve this marker text: "Space to three adjacent Contacts ( < 0.10um apart) >= 0.08 um"?

VictorArzate

I am designing a simple inverter to test the gpdk045 library, and when performing the DCR with DIVA, this appears: "Space to three adjacent Contacts (<0.10um apart)> = 0.08 um"? .
I generated the cells of the transitors as follows: Connectivity-> Generate -> All from source. And I generated a PMOS type transistor as seen in the attached image. I would like to solve this.

Parents
  • Andrew Beckett

    I just tried this out with a pmos1v with finger width=400n and a "detached" Bodytie type, and the spacing of the contacts is 0.08um - this error didn't occur when I ran Diva (a little unusual to run Diva, but it is supported with this PDK).

    Which version of gpdk045 are you using? Which device is it that you have placed, and what are the parameters?

    Andrew

  • VictorArzate
    in reply to Andrew Beckett

    Hi

    I'm using gpdk045_v_6_0 version. The device I placed is the pmos1v with finger width =360nm, "detached" Bodytie type, Lenght =45nm, Tap Contact Rows =1.  I attach an image. 

  • Andrew Beckett
    in reply to VictorArzate

    OK - for some reason when I first played with this, I thought that 400nm was the minimum to get three contacts. With 360nm, I see the 0.06um spacing between the contacts.

    The issue however is that the Diva rule is not coded to find the spacing when there are greater than 3 neighbours (I don't think this is possible with Diva - at least not easily - and it's rule that typically only started to appear in smaller nodes that Diva is not typically used for). So the Diva rules are merely finding all the contact spacings less than 0.1um and then checking of those if any are less than 0.08um. In this example it's wrong because there are not 3 neighbours for any of the contacts.

    Put simply, I wouldn't use Diva on this PDK - use PVS (or Assura).

    Regards,

    Andrew.

Reply
  • Andrew Beckett
    in reply to VictorArzate

    OK - for some reason when I first played with this, I thought that 400nm was the minimum to get three contacts. With 360nm, I see the 0.06um spacing between the contacts.

    The issue however is that the Diva rule is not coded to find the spacing when there are greater than 3 neighbours (I don't think this is possible with Diva - at least not easily - and it's rule that typically only started to appear in smaller nodes that Diva is not typically used for). So the Diva rules are merely finding all the contact spacings less than 0.1um and then checking of those if any are less than 0.08um. In this example it's wrong because there are not 3 neighbours for any of the contacts.

    Put simply, I wouldn't use Diva on this PDK - use PVS (or Assura).

    Regards,

    Andrew.

Children
No Data

Community Guidelines

The Cadence Design Communities support Cadence users and technologists interacting to exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices to solve problems and get the most from Cadence technology. 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. By accessing, contributing, using or downloading any materials from the site, you agree to be bound by the full Community Guidelines.