• Skip to main content
  • Skip to search
  • Skip to footer
Cadence Home
  • This search text may be transcribed, used, stored, or accessed by our third-party service providers per our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.

  1. Community Forums
  2. Custom IC Design
  3. leaf cell issue with using diffstbprobe

Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 2
  • Subscribers 125
  • Views 10767
  • 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

leaf cell issue with using diffstbprobe

kenc184
kenc184 over 3 years ago

I have a fully differential amplifier design and wish to look at gain/phase.  I've instantiated diffstbprobe between outputs and inputs, and on the prompts, selected I3/IN1 and I3/IN2 as the "probe Instance/terminal" 1 and 2.

Spectre dies with the following error

 Cannot run the simulation because the leaf instance 'I3' could not be found. Specify a valid leaf instance terminal name for the stb analysis and rerun the simulation

Any ideas?  I don't recall ever having a similar issue with cmdmprobe so I assume something somewhere is not set up correctly.

  • Cancel
Parents
  • Andrew Beckett
    Andrew Beckett over 3 years ago

    There is a very recent addition (in IC618/ICADVM201 ISR21) which allows you to do differential/common-mode stability without needing to insert a diffstbprobe. This also requires SPECTRE20.1 ISR8 or later. So there are two flows:

    1. You have a diffstbprobe, in which case the Probe Instance/Terminal1 should simply be the instance of the diffstbprobe itself (not a terminal of the diffstbprobe). The second field (Probe Terminal2) should be left blank.
    2. Alternatively you can point at two separate instance terminals and if that is done a diffstbprobe is effectively inserted within the simulator (at least, you can think of it being done this way). In this case the two fields become the instance terminals - but there is a requirement that the instance terminals are on leaf devices (i.e. primitive devices) as this means there is only a single current flow that is being monitored. This is particularly useful for post-layout flows as it avoids you having to do all the messing around with deepprobe as I outline in How to perform a stability (stb) analysis on a loop within an extracted view or DSPF file 

    You're trying to use the first flow above, but by entering the fields for the second flow - and that won't work.

    I do agree that the UI is a little confusing now. I'm going to update the article above but also suggest to R&D that they improve the usability of the form to make it clearer.

    Regards,

    Andrew

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
Reply
  • Andrew Beckett
    Andrew Beckett over 3 years ago

    There is a very recent addition (in IC618/ICADVM201 ISR21) which allows you to do differential/common-mode stability without needing to insert a diffstbprobe. This also requires SPECTRE20.1 ISR8 or later. So there are two flows:

    1. You have a diffstbprobe, in which case the Probe Instance/Terminal1 should simply be the instance of the diffstbprobe itself (not a terminal of the diffstbprobe). The second field (Probe Terminal2) should be left blank.
    2. Alternatively you can point at two separate instance terminals and if that is done a diffstbprobe is effectively inserted within the simulator (at least, you can think of it being done this way). In this case the two fields become the instance terminals - but there is a requirement that the instance terminals are on leaf devices (i.e. primitive devices) as this means there is only a single current flow that is being monitored. This is particularly useful for post-layout flows as it avoids you having to do all the messing around with deepprobe as I outline in How to perform a stability (stb) analysis on a loop within an extracted view or DSPF file 

    You're trying to use the first flow above, but by entering the fields for the second flow - and that won't work.

    I do agree that the UI is a little confusing now. I'm going to update the article above but also suggest to R&D that they improve the usability of the form to make it clearer.

    Regards,

    Andrew

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
Children
  • kenc184
    kenc184 over 3 years ago in reply to Andrew Beckett

    Thanks very much Andrew, that wasn't obvious!

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel

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.

© 2025 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy
  • Cookie Policy
  • US Trademarks
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information