feature article
Subscribe Now

Dueling DFMs

Mentor and Synopsys Announce DFM Developments

Design For Manufacturing (DFM) was a headline darling for a while and somehow disappeared off the radar, even as debates continued as to whether all the DFM fuss was about nothing. In fact, much of what constitutes DFM, originally implemented as point tools by young upstart companies, has quietly been subsumed into mainstream flows by mainstream tool providers, thanks in part to the traditional EDA start-up/buy-up cycle.

Fundamentally, design and verification have gone from modeling the idealized results of a manufacturing process to modeling the actual manufacturing steps in much greater detail. The criticality and accuracy required have evolved so that what was once a conceptual shift, moving manufacturing considerations into the design sphere, have now become standard, and the tools are now on that general trend of increasing precision and performance.

Recently, both Mentor and Synopsys made some announcements enhancing their respective DFM capabilities. While there was overlap in the issues addressed, the main points addressed by the releases were different. Mentor has placed specific focus on the Chemical-Metal Polish (CMP) phase of manufacturing, while Synopsys has taken the integration of DFM closure closer into the design loop.

Standing on its side

A funny thing happened somewhere along the way as horizontal dimensions shrank. Once upon a time, metal lines were thin, flat wires of some width and length, and all the verification scrutiny was on the horizontal dimensions to make sure that the lines could be manufactured reliably. In the thinking of the day, it would have seemed silly to take such lines and stand them on their sides, with the wide part of the line actually going vertically into the silicon. Yet, over time, that’s exactly what’s happened. The horizontal width has shrunk down to where it can be about half the thickness of the metal. That means the line is taller than it is wide; it’s like an old line on its side.

But the design focus has fundamentally remained concentrated on the horizontal dimensions, and that’s no longer good enough. Metal lines aren’t uniformly distributed over the top of a chip; there are parts with lots of metal interconnect and parts that are relatively barren. The problem is that, with the thickness of the metal being significant, the surface of the die will now ripple, based on where there is or isn’t any metal. And the depth of that ripple actually matters, since the focal length of the next lithography step will be critical. The machines can’t focus both on the top of the metallized portions and on the top of the metal-less portions with equal precision. Making matters more complicated still, the expected variation in the thickness of the metal is moving to 20% at the 32-nm node.

So the solution has been to add “metal fill” – that is, put in metal that’s not connected to anything just to fill the space and keep the surface of the chip more or less level. Of course, adding too much of this isn’t great either, since these floating blobs can couple to active metal. So you want enough fill but not too much.

Mentor sees an active transition occurring here from a rules-based approach to a more comprehensive model-based approach, and they’re incorporating this into their Calibre tool. On one hand, you can think of models as just much more sophisticated rules, but there’s a more subtle difference. Rules are derived by analyzing the effects of various layouts and inferring rules. It is assumed that if you follow the rules, you will be okay. But there’s a layer of indirection, and, even after following the rules, you need to do some verification to ensure that things worked out ok. The model-based approach uses analysis directly when creating the metal fill in order to place the fill in a manner that is more or less correct by construction (or as nearly correct as the model can provide), eliminating the “fill-analyze-tweak” loop and replacing it with an “analyze-fill” step.

Mentor sees this transition occurring in phases, and they have structured their products accordingly. The first step is what they call their SmartFill product. Its role is to do a better job of traditional metal fill, striking a better balance between enough and too much fill. The next step involves pushing fill verification to the designer with their CMPAnalyzer tool. This allows designers to check more accurately the 3D impact of their metal layout and the possible variations in metal thickness. The final step involves a transition to model-based fill, which integrates the analysis and fill creation components together.

Steady as she goes

Synopsys, in the meantime, has turned its energy towards the fact that having a separate DFM convergence step is at best time consuming and at worst may not work, since it’s decoupled from the timing convergence step. The way things are done now, you do your place and route, check the DFM, and then change the design, rinse, and repeat, pulling out your hair here and there. With luck, you move towards a clean design. Without luck, you keep repeating until you have no more hairs left to pull out.

Their main emphasis, as embodied in their new IC Validator tool, is on providing incremental DFM checking during the design process so that convergence happens as the design progresses. DFM is optimized by the tools concurrently with timing so that they should be able to converge together.

IC Validator appears to be rules-based, but Synopsys has provided a new proprietary language, PXL, to allow creation of more sophisticated rules (although TCL can also be used if desired). Like the predecessor Hercules tool, IC Validator is what they call a “hybrid” tool in that both polygon-based and more modern edge-based rules can be accommodated.

Interestingly enough, they also highlight metal fill as one of the key DFM utilites. Coincidence? But rather than their message focusing specifically on the CMP element, they note that, whereas metal fill added during the place-and-route phase will always use “tracks” for the fill elements, IC Validator can allow for “trackless” metal fill, giving better coverage since the fill isn’t constrained to the tracking grid. And, just as a more or less uniform metal density is desirable on a given layer, the same is true for vias. So via fill operates on basically the same principle as metal fill.

The tool works in conjunction with the IC Compiler place and route tool so that when problems are detected, a constraint is fed back to the router so that the layout can be automatically tweaked to resolve the violation. Done in an incremental manner and in conjunction with timing constraints, the design remains in convergence each step of the way as the design progresses.


Mentor Calibre DFM

Synopsys IC Validator

Leave a Reply

featured blogs
Dec 1, 2020
If you'€™d asked me at the beginning of 2020 as to the chances of my replicating an 1820 Welsh dresser, I would have said '€œzero,'€ which just goes to show how little I know....
Dec 1, 2020
More package designers these days, with the increasing component counts and more complicated electrical constraints, are shifting to using a front-end schematic capture tool. As with IC and PCB... [[ Click on the title to access the full blog on the Cadence Community site. ]...
Dec 1, 2020
UCLA’s Maxx Tepper gives us a brief overview of the Ocean High-Throughput processor to be used in the upgrade of the real-time event selection system of the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC (Large Hadron Collider). The board incorporates Samtec FireFly'„¢ optical cable ...
Nov 25, 2020
[From the last episode: We looked at what it takes to generate data that can be used to train machine-learning .] We take a break from learning how IoT technology works for one of our occasional posts on how IoT technology is used. In this case, we look at trucking fleet mana...

featured video

AI SoC Chats: Scaling AI Systems with Die-to-Die Interfaces

Sponsored by Synopsys

Join Synopsys Interface IP expert Manmeet Walia to understand the trends around scaling AI SoCs and systems while minimizing latency and power by using die-to-die interfaces.

Click here for more information about DesignWare IP for Amazing AI

featured paper

Top 9 design questions about digital isolators

Sponsored by Texas Instruments

Looking for more information about digital isolators? We’re here to help. Based on TI E2E™ support forum feedback, we compiled a list of the most frequently asked questions about digital isolator design challenges. This article covers questions such as, “What is the logic state of a digital isolator with no input signal?”, and “Can you leave unused channel pins on a digital isolator floating?”

Click here to download the whitepaper

Featured Chalk Talk

Innovative Hybrid Crowbar Protection for AC Power Lines

Sponsored by Mouser Electronics and Littelfuse

Providing robust AC line protection is a tough engineering challenge. Lightning and other unexpected events can wreak havoc with even the best-engineered power supplies. In this episode of Chalk Talk, Amelia Dalton chats with Pete Pytlik of Littelfuse about innovative SIDACtor semiconductor hybrid crowbar protection for AC power lines, that combine the best of TVS and MOV technologies to deliver superior low clamping voltage for power lines.

More information about Littelfuse SIDACtor + MOV AC Line Protection