• 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. Functional Verification
  3. PSL Assertion

Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5
  • Subscribers 64
  • Views 14757
  • 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

PSL Assertion

archive
archive over 18 years ago

Is it useful to write the psl assertions for checking the CRC? How I can write the PSL assertion for interface signal between two modules? Any Example?


Originally posted in cdnusers.org by vlsi_dude
  • Cancel
  • archive
    archive over 18 years ago

    Hey Dude,

    1) CRC checking can be done by creating 2 signals: A the original vector with CRC field. B the same vector with one bit flipped (this is a constraint like "countones(A xor B) = 1"). The vector itself is unconstrained, but the CRC field needs to be correctly calculated. Your CRC decoder should provide the corrected vector on the output. Similary you can detect 2 flipped bits. IFV did pretty good jobs with CRC blocks in the past.

    2) pure connectivity checking is described in a paper from Freescale at CDNLive 2006 Silicon Valley. Please browse the proceedings there.

    Joerg.


    Originally posted in cdnusers.org by jmueller
    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • archive
    archive over 18 years ago

    Thanks Joerg.

    Can we synthesize these PSL assertion?


    Originally posted in cdnusers.org by vlsi_dude
    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • archive
    archive over 18 years ago

    yes.


    Originally posted in cdnusers.org by jmueller
    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • archive
    archive over 18 years ago

    I am writing psl assertion for interfacing signals from one module to another module.
    Like if Module A has signal sigA1 which is connected to Module B of signal sigB1, then i have written

    property prop1 = always (A.sigA1 == B.sigB1)@(posedge CLK);
    assert prop1;

    Whether this is the correct way to write for interface signal or any other method we can use?
    Also Whether this type of assertions are useful?

    Thanks


    Originally posted in cdnusers.org by vlsi_dude
    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • archive
    archive over 18 years ago

    Hi Dude,

    this is a correct assertion to verify connectivity between 2 arbitrary points in your design. You may need to remove the other drivers of sigA1 to improve performance. More information on that type of verification can be found at

    http://www.cdnusers.org/CDNLive/SiliconValley2006Proceedings/tabid/366/Default.aspx?topic=Functional%20verification

    Look for "Session 1.8: Formal Analysis of Padring Mux-Logic Using IFV (Incisive Formal Verifier)"

    Regards,
    Joerg.


    Originally posted in cdnusers.org by jmueller
    • 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