Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 8
  • Subscribers 93
  • Views 17220
  • 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

Encounter 8.1 vs 9.1 sdf generation

MzQuarter

Hi,

I've used Encounter 8.1 for past projects to generate sdf back-annotation for simulation and it worked great. Now we've moved to Encounter 9.1, but the exact same 8.1 encounter project reloaded in 9.1 gives different results. First of all, the middle field ("typical", my guess) is no longer present, and when I load the sdf in a simulator the delays are all taken as 0 (no delays).  Second, the delays for interconnect are different, and quite often 0. Another difference I noticed is that in 8.1 the value triplets were always the same (which I thought odd), but not in encounter 9.1.

What am I missing? I'm almost sure it's just a setting, but I can't see where or how.

Thanks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encounter 8.1:

(INTERCONNECT I_NCS U134/A (0.0037:0.0037:0.0037) (0.0037:0.0037:0.0037))
(INTERCONNECT I_SCLK Q_TRANSACTIONCOMPLETE_REG/CKN (0.0045:0.0045:0.0045) (0.0045:0.0045:0.0045))

Encounter 9.1:

(INTERCONNECT I_NCS U134/A  (0.003::0.004) (0.003::0.004))
(INTERCONNECT I_SCLK Q_TRANSACTIONCOMPLETE_REG/CKN  (0.000::0.000) (0.000::0.000))

Parents
  • diablo

    The first thing i noticed in sdf values between your 8.1 and 9.1 run is that their precision is different. 

     You can use write_sdf -prec to determine how much precision you want. If you want to compare 9.1 with 8.1, use write_sdf -prec 4 while writing sdf. 

    Secondly, it didn't look like you were getting corners interconnect delay in your 8.1 run. Something is not right, if you were expecting corner delays there. In your 9.1, you are getting corner delays, and the one with 0's might be just becuase of precision.  

    You have to create analysis view for MMMC analysis. But looks like your intent is to do just bcwc analysis.

    You said you wanted sdf for back annotated simulation. While doing back annotated simulation, do you run in all three corners?

Reply
  • diablo

    The first thing i noticed in sdf values between your 8.1 and 9.1 run is that their precision is different. 

     You can use write_sdf -prec to determine how much precision you want. If you want to compare 9.1 with 8.1, use write_sdf -prec 4 while writing sdf. 

    Secondly, it didn't look like you were getting corners interconnect delay in your 8.1 run. Something is not right, if you were expecting corner delays there. In your 9.1, you are getting corner delays, and the one with 0's might be just becuase of precision.  

    You have to create analysis view for MMMC analysis. But looks like your intent is to do just bcwc analysis.

    You said you wanted sdf for back annotated simulation. While doing back annotated simulation, do you run in all three corners?

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.