• 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. Digital Implementation
  3. The issue in checkDesign report

Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4
  • Subscribers 91
  • Views 13334
  • 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

The issue in checkDesign report

Greatrebel
Greatrebel over 15 years ago

 Hi All,

 I got some issues in checkDesign report. Firstly, in Top level Floorplan Check, I saw three iterms FALSE: Placement grid on Mfg. grid, User grid a multiple of Mfg. grid, and User grid a multiple of Mfg. grid. I do not know what these mean? Are they really important warnings. 

 Secondly,there are a few cells whose dimensions are not interger multiple of their site, so I got Cell dimension multiple of Site report.

I am wondering whether the dimension issue is important or not?

 

Thanks in advance

 

  • Cancel
  • Kari
    Kari over 15 years ago

     You can ignore those first 3 FALSE items. It's normal for the placement grid to be much wider than the manufacturing grid, and you probably don't have a user grid defined (also completely normal).

    I would be concerned though about the cells with dimensions not a multiple of the site. Are these cells actually going to be used in your design? Do they need a different SITE than your other cells, that maybe is not defined? Double-check the SITE statment in the LEF of these cells, as well as the SITE definitions in your tech LEF.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • Greatrebel
    Greatrebel over 15 years ago

     I checked the LEF files. Actually, there is a site called pad defined in lef file for IO pad. In bond pad lef file, the bond pad macros have a statement "site pad ;", but there is no definitions for site pad in that file. So the site defined for IO pad does not match bond pads. I am wondering can I remove the site statement for bond pad or define a new site with a different name for bond pad? And is the site really important for PnR?

     Thanks a lot

     

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • Kari
    Kari over 15 years ago

     You can probably remove the site statement from the bond pads. (I don't have any experience with bond pads, but they should function similarly to IO cells as far as floorplanning goes.) IOs and bond pads don't need sites (unless you have areaIO), although you CAN use sites for IO rows if you want to.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • Greatrebel
    Greatrebel over 15 years ago

     Hi Kari,

     

    Thank you very much for your help!

    • 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