Worst-case aggressor-victim alignment with current-source driver models

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Worst-case aggressor-victim alignment with current-source driver models

Full text

Pdf (1.20 MB)

Source

Annual ACM IEEE Design Automation Conference archive
Proceedings of the 46th Annual Design Automation Conference table of contents

San Francisco, California

SESSION: Combating non-idealities in static timing analysis table of contents

Pages 13-18

Year of Publication: 2009

ISBN:978-1-60558-497-3

Authors

Ravikishore Gandikota	University of Michigan
Li Ding	Synopsys, CA
Peivand Tehrani	Synopsys, CA
David Blaauw	University of Michigan

Sponsors

EDAC : Electronic Design Automation Consortium
SIGDA: ACM Special Interest Group on Design Automation
IEEE-CAS : Circuits & Systems

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 14, Downloads (12 Months): 14, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

abstract references index terms

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1629911.1629919 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Crosstalk delay-noise which occurs due to the simultaneous transitions of victim and aggressor drivers is very sensitive to their mutual alignment. Hence, during static noise analysis, it is crucial to identify the worst-case victim-aggressor alignment which results in the maximum delay-noise. Although several approaches have been proposed to obtain the worst-case aggressor alignment, most of them compute only the worst-case stage delay of the victim. However, in reality it is essential to compute the worst-case combined delay of victim stage and victim receiver gate [5, 9]. We propose a heuristic approach to compute the worst-case aggressor alignment which maximizes the victim receiver output arrival time. In this work, we use a novel cumulative gate overdrive voltage (CGOV) metric to model the victim receiver output transition. HSPICE simulations, performed on industrial nets to validate the proposed methodology, show an average error of 1.7% in delay-noise when compared to the worst-case alignment obtained by an exhaustive sweeping.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	J. Qian, S. Pullela, and L. T. Pillage. Modeling the effective capacitance of RC interconnect, In IEEE Trans. on CAD, pages 1526--1535, 1994.
	2	F. Dartu, N. Menezes, J. Qian, and L. T. Pillage. A gate-delay model for high speed cmos circuits, In Proc. DAC, pages 576--580, 1994.
	3	R. Arunachalam, F. Dartu, and L. T. Pileggi. CMOS gate delay models for general RLC loading, In Proc. ICCD, pages 576--580, 1994.
	4	F. Dartu, N. Menezes, and L. T. Pileggi. Performance computation for precharacterized CMOS gates with RC loads, In IEEE Trans. on CAD, pages 544--553, 1996.
	5	D. Blaauw, S. Sirichotiyakul, and C. Oh. Driver modeling and alignment for worst-case delay noise, In IEEE Trans. on VLSI, 11(2), April 2003.
	6	S. K. Gupta L. C. Chen and M. A. Breur. A new gate delay model for simultaneous switching and its applications, In Proc. DAC, pages 289--294, 2001.
	7	J. F. Croix and D. F. Wong. Blade and Razor: Cell and Interconnect Delay Analysis Using Current-Based Model, In Proc. DAC, pages 386--389, 2003.
	8	C. Amin, C. Kashyap, N. Menezes, K. Kilpak, and E. Chiprout. A multi-port current source model for multiple-input switching effects in CMOS library cells, In Proc. DAC, pages 247--252, 2006.
	9	I. Keller, K. Tseng, and N. Verghese. A robust cell-level crosstalk delay change analysis, In Proc. ICCAD, 2004.
	10	P. D. Gross, R. Arunachalam, K. Rajagopalan, and L. T. Pileggi. Determination of wrost-case aggressor alignment for delay calculation, In In Proc. ICCAD, pages 212--219, 1998.
	11	V. Rajappan and S. S. Sapatnekar. An Efficient Algorithm for Calculating the Worst-case Delay due to Crosstalk, In In Proc. ICCD, pages 76, 2003.
	12	M. Hashimoto, Y. Yamada and H. Onodera. Equivalent waveform propagation for static timing analysis, In IEEE Trans. on CAD, 23(4), April 2004.
	13	L. Ding, P. Tehrani and A. Kasnavi. Determining Equivalent Waveforms for Distorted Waveforms, U.S. Patent 7272807, 2007.
	14	R. Gandikota, K. Chopra, D. Blaauw, D. Sylvester, M. Becer and J. Geada. Victim alignment in crosstalk aware timing analysis. In Proc. ICCAD, pages 698--704, 2007.
	15	S. S. Sapatnekar. A Timing Model Incorporating the Effect of Crosstalk on Delay and its Application to Optimal Channel Routing, In IEEE Trans. on CAD, pages 550--559, 2000.
	16	R. Arunachalam, K. Rajagopal, and L. T. Pilleggi. TACO: Timing analysis with coupling, In Proc. DAC, pages 266--269, 2000.
	17	H. Zhou, N. Shenoy and W. Nicholls. Timing Analysis with Crosstalk is a Fixpoint on a Complete Lattice, In Proc. DAC, pages 714--719, 2001.
	18	H. Im, M. Song, T. Hiramoto and T. Sakurai. Physical insight into fractional power dependence of saturation current on gate voltage in advanced short-channel MOSFETs (alpha-power law model), In Proc. ISLPED, pages 13--18, 2002.
	19	K. Agarwal, Y. Cao, T. Sato, D. Sylvester and C. Hu. Efficient Generation of Delay Change Curves for Noise-Aware Static Timing Analysis, In Proc. ASPDAC, pages 77--84, 2002.
	20	N. Lu. Statistical and Corner Modeling of Interconnect Resistance and Capacitance, In Proc. CICC, pages 853--856, 2006.