Presentation on theme: "PRESENTER: PCLee 2011.12.14. System-on-chip (SoC) designs use bus protocols for high performance data transfer among the Intellectual Property (IP) cores."— Presentation transcript:
PRESENTER: PCLee 2011.12.14
System-on-chip (SoC) designs use bus protocols for high performance data transfer among the Intellectual Property (IP) cores. These protocols incorporate advanced features such as pipelining, burst and split transfers. In this paper, we describe a case study in formally verifying a widely used SoC bus protocol: the Advanced Micro-controller Bus Architecture (AMBA) protocol from ARM. In particular, we develop a formal specification of the AMBA protocol. We then employ model checking, a state space exploration based formal verification technique, to verify crucial design invariants. The presence of pipelining and split transfer in the AMBA protocol gives rise to interesting corner cases, which are hard to detect via informal reasoning. Using the SMV model checker, we have detected a potential bus starvation scenario in the AMBA protocol. Such scenarios demonstrate the inherent intricacies in designing pipelined bus protocols.
This paper [1,4,8] formal specification and verification of PCI [11, 12] moniror-based verification
Whats the problem Interaction specified informally before Correctness of protocol is hard to describe Some bugs cannot be found. (deadlock, starvation…pipeline problem)
AHB BUS IP1 … IP2 MODEL CHECKING (check if model satisfies specification) MODEL CHECKING (check if model satisfies specification) Formal specification (property of design must to satisfy by CTL…) Formal specification (property of design must to satisfy by CTL…) design model Analyze result Error design False negative of system specification automatic manual
Advantage: State space explosion Verify concurrent finite state system automatically. Disadvantage: Restriction on finite state system(controller, communication protocol..)
Pipeline and waiting cycle Split and retry response
Design model Multiple masters Multiple slaves Arbiter Decoder Default master Default slave Using Computation Tree Logic(CTL) to specify property AG(HBUSREQ m AF HGRANT m ) means HGRANT will eventually high if HBUSREQ has been raise. Experiment environment: 2 masters and 1 slave Linux version of Cadence SMV in a Pentium IV 1.3 GHz
AG(HBUSREQm AF HGRANTm) is a crucial design invariant of non-starvation. Starvation situation: Slave never informs the arbiter that it is now able to service master. Even after slave has informed its ability to service master, the arbiter ignores the bus request from master forever. Reason: Implementation error! Unfair arbitration policy!
Using fair and slave_live to prove AG(HBUSREQm maskm AF HGRANTm) If slave split the transaction, arbiter must mask the request of master. If the arbiter doesnt mask master and the master has bus request, HGRANT of this master must be high eventaully. AG(splitm AF HSPLITm) The slave must recover from split state if it had split transaction before.
Arbiter mask m2. But it is split for m1
Formal verification can find many corner case and more automatic. Starvation scenario would be hard to detect without automated formal verification.
Model checking may makes debug more quickly. Formal verification has other method today. It verify system by using algorithm.
Goal: Run standalone verification on RVDS Problem: RVDS cant load image file of CICs test program CIC said that wrong version of ads. I write a simple program. RVDS can load it. Next: continue to discuss with CIC.