• 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. SDF Errors

Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5
  • Subscribers 94
  • Views 17494
  • 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

SDF Errors

tswong
tswong over 14 years ago

We are performing postlayout simulation for a digital design which adopts TSMC 65nm standard cell library. During SDF back annotation by Verilog-XL 8.2, there are many SDFA errors, "Failed to find SETUP timingcheck" and "Failed to find HOLD timingcheck". But the simulation is still passed. Is it caused by mismatch Verilog model of the standard cells? or by improper EDA tools? Is it important?

Thanks!

  • Cancel
  • Scrivner
    Scrivner over 14 years ago

     It sounds like the timing checks in your verilog model do not match those in your .lib files. The SDF is generated based on the timing in the .lib file. During back-annotation, it tries to match the SDF timing to a timingcheck in the verilog model. What appears to be happening above is that during back-annotation, it can't find the setup and hold timing checks in your verilog model.

    If this is what's happening, it is important, because even though the simulation is passing, it may be passing without performing setup and hold timing checks.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • diablo
    diablo over 14 years ago

    Check in you ncelab/irun log file for: 

        Annotating SDF timing data:
            Compiled SDF file:     Your_Design.sdf.X
            Log file:              logs/design.log
            Backannotation scope:  tb.dut
            Configuration file:    
            MTM control:           MINIMUM
            Scale factors:         1:1:1
            Scale type:            
        Annotation completed with 0 Errors and 16 Warnings

    Do you have any Errors ? 

     

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • timchung
    timchung over 14 years ago

     Hi Scrivner,

     I would like to know if the SDF is generated based on the timing in the .lib file, why is it not able to find the setup and hold timing checks in the verilog model which is in general generated by synthesizer or modified by router according to the same .lib file?

     -Tim

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • Scrivner
    Scrivner over 14 years ago

    The verilog models are not generated by synthesis or modified by the router. I think you might be referring to instantiations of gates in a netlist (which are synthesized and affected by the router). 

    The verilog models I was referring to are the verilog library of the standard cells. These define the funtions and behaviors of the gates instantiated in the netlist. They are used by ncverilog to simulate the instances in the netlist.

    What you need to do is look at the timingcheck section for a flop in the SDF file and compare it to the timingcheck section in the verilog model of the same cell. For each timing check in the SDF, there should be a matching timing check in the verilog model. This matching timing check in the verilog model is what the SDF back-annotates to. When there is a timing check in the SDF that does not have a matching timing check in the verilog model, there is nothing for that SDF timing check to back-annotate to. That is when you get an error or warning like the ones you are seeing.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • MzQuarter
    MzQuarter over 14 years ago

    Hi Scrivner,

    I have a situation similar to that of this thread. Some of our cells have sdf annotations unspecified in the verilog (giving a elaboration warning), but I also have missing sdf annotations requested in the verilog (thus leaving the default check values of 1 ns). I looked a bit but I'm still stuck.

    Basically, if I use my hdl compiler to generate a sdf without RC, I get everything I need, and the elaborator does not complain. In this sdf, I have 3 setup checks, 3 hold checks and 3 width checks.

    When I use encounter, I get 3 width checks, 2 setuphold checks and 1 recrem check. From the pin names of the recrem I'm pretty sure this sdf annotation replaced the missing setup/hold pair that I'm looking for. I tried telling encounter to use version 2.1 sdf with the -remashold switch, and got one more hold, related to a recovery (which is of course not in the verilog specify block).

     Any ideas on which end to work? Add/modify the specify fields in the verilog, or work out how to write out the necessary fields in the sdf? I'd like to give more details, but I'm not sure what could be useful at this point.

    Thanks

    • 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