“Opportunities in Analog Verification”
Posted by mike demler on January 15th, 2009
Planet Analog recently published their list of the most popular articles of 2008 on the Design Center website. I’m not sure if the list is in order of popularity, but it is interesting to see “Opportunities in Analog Verification” right up there with all the digital stuff. The article was written by Saranyan Vigraham of Qualcomm, and the discussion thread which followed is also worth checking out.
One of the comments that stood out for me was Saranyan’s statement that
“the present EDA tools do not focus on methodologies.
Actually, it is not about the EDA companies, analog designers and chip leads have to bring a methodical approach to verifying their chips”
This goes to the point of my recent post on AMS Verification at ICCAD, and the comments that followed. I have said that EDA companies focus way too much on individual tools to the detriment of the complete flows required, especially in the analog/mixed-signal realm. But I also agree totally with Saranyan’s point that the expertise required resides more in the design teams themselves. Vendors and semiconductor companies alike would be more successful by establishing collaborative efforts to make the task of AMS verification less difficult. This is woefully lacking.
I was just listening in on the continuing Accellera AMS discussions for analog assertions this past Tuesday. When time came to ask for volunteers to develop a requirements document, the silence was near deafening. This committee is seriously lacking in a diversity of customer participation, but the EDA representatives were also reluctant to step forward. Everyone can make a case for the tough economic environment, but isn’t that the best reason of all to work closer together? Or, should we just conclude that analog assertions aren’t that important?
If you don’t believe that, and you have something to say about what EDA vendors are or are not doing for you, then quit your bitching (hey it’s on m-w.com) and join the discussion. You can catch up on the past meetings by going to the Twiki at http://www.eda.org/twiki/bin/view.cgi/VerilogAMS/AmsAssertions.
-Mike
AMS verification
assertions
Accellera
RSS
Verilog-AMS is (in theory) in the process of moving from Accellera to IEEE to become part of SystemVerilog, so I suspect that integration will take priority over assertions (as far as language development goes). Having said that, I have a friend at Qualcomm who is keen to contribute on AMS assertions, but his legal guys say he can’t contribute stuff to Accellera, so maybe that’ll happen once it moves.
Kev.
Hi Kevin,
Yeah, I know a couple of guys at QCOM too. It’s not a surprise, given all their involvement in litigation. That said however, I can think of several other prominent customers who are conspicuous by their absence in these discussions. One comment that I heard is that some companies are reluctant to participate in Accellera because they feel it is run by EDA companies. Obviously, that is no where near the case in the AMS assertion discussions. IEEE, on the other hand, is seen as an impartial organization where they are willing to participate.
Mike
There’s a bit of a misperception that Accellera is run by EDA companies. The Accellera board is made up of 6 EDA vendors and 6 user companies. The chair is from a user company as is the technical committee chair. Each working group is open to everyone to participate in – one doesn’t have to be an Accellera member to donate, participate, work. (For critical votes, though, one does have to be a member.)
I’m seeing an interesting shift in Accellera standards activities. They are becoming much more user-driven that EDA-driven. For instance, VIP and UCIS are chaired and strongly driven by users. And behind the scenes, SystemVerilog was demanded by users, not EDA.
With all due respect, if users aren’t participating, there’s probably no one to blame but the users themselves. I wish many more users would help produce Accellera standards. That way we’d know we’re developing the standards in Accellera that they really need.
Kevin Cameron mentioned a legal issue that prevents Qualcomm from participating. That’s a whole different story!