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 .
is there any difference regarding simulation and layout between the notation: instance_name<0:3> and defining m=4 in the instance properties form?
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.
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