1. 1 Integration Verification: Re-Create or Re-Use? Nick Gatherer Trident Digital Systems

2. 2 Introduction Nick Gatherer SoC Design Manager Trident Digital Systems (Formerly BU TV, NXP Semiconductors) In former NXP role … Chair of NXP’s Advanced Functional Verification Working Group -NXP’s cross-business expert team on verification NXP Business Renewal project manager for System Level Design & Verification

3. 3 Agenda Introduction & Verification Landscape Focus on Integration Verification Challenges What does it cost ? The IP  Integrator Interface Example verification re-use methodology Conclusions Q & A

4. 4 Trident – SoCs for DTV & STB (high complexity !) PNX847x/8x/9x World’s first fully integrated 45nm Set Top Box SoC platform Architectural & IP re-use from PNX85500 (internal & 3 rd party IP) PNX85500 Industry’s first digital TV processor in 45nm CMOS Most complex SoC ever developed by NXP/Trident Required aggressive TtM & Right First Time From packaged parts received to System bring up in less than 10 days Very high level of functionality and performance

5. 5 Functional Verification – A Holistic Approach System validation HW/SW integration & co-verification SW development HW Integration Hardware IP Virtual Prototype RTL Simulation FPGA Prototype EmulationSilicon Select appropriate platform per project phase Availability vs Accuracy vs Performance vs Debuggability Allocate coverage goals to specific platforms Verification Technology Landscape

6. 6 Functional Verification – Re-Use Opportunities System validation HW/SW integration & co-verification SW development HW Integration Hardware IP Virtual Prototype RTL Simulation FPGA Prototype EmulationSilicon Verification Technology Landscape Re-use across verification tasks/abstractions Re-use across verification platforms Re-use across projects Verification re-use depends on stakeholder alignment IP suppliers, IP integrators, verification teams, technology/standards

7. 7 Agenda Introduction & Verification Landscape Focus on Integration Verification Challenges What does it cost ? The IP  Integrator Interface Example verification re-use methodology Conclusions Q & A

8. 8 Integration Verification – Challenges HW integration verification Focus on (structural) integration integrity Interconnect & interoperability Typical Challenges Integrator has limited knowledge of IP implementation IP supplier has limited knowledge of target system Use of multiple IP suppliers results in inconsistent IP verification views Methodology, testbenches, coverage data, etc. Industry standards late. Mechanisms for accommodating IP configuration Usually need to port IP tests to SoC level / environment in order to re-use Huge effort ! What sub-set is needed for integration verification ? Awareness and impact of IP implementation changes & known problems Concurrent IP dev and SoC integration demands incremental maturity Difficult to debug complex interactions between IPs (embedded checks help) How much coverage is sufficient for integration confidence ?

9. 9 Agenda Introduction & Verification Landscape Focus on Integration Verification Challenges What does it cost ? The IP  Integrator Interface Example verification re-use methodology Conclusions Q & A

10. 10 Integration Verification – What does it cost per IP ? Integration Test IP with no external I/O, no DMA, no master IF [weeks] IP with external I/O, DMA, but no master IF [weeks] IP with external I/O, DMA and bus master IF [weeks] Register Access0.5 – 1.0 Clock & Reset Connectivity 0.5 – 1.0 Interrupt Connectivity0.5 – 1.5 Stub Integrationn.a.1.0 – 4.0 I/O Connectivityn.a.0.5 – 1.5 DMA Connectivityn.a.1.0 – 2.0 Communication Stub/CPU n.a. 1.0 – 4.0 Bus Master Interfacen.a. 1.0 – 3.0 Total1.5 – 3.54.0 – 11.06.0 – 18.0 Effort for integration verification is 50%-75% of the total SoC front end work  Re-use is a must!!! Example project (from subsequent data mining) …

11. 11 Integration Verification – What does it cost per SoC ?  For a medium complexity SoC with around 50 IPs … Integration verification effort is 100 – 250 man weeks −Effort can vary a lot depending on how much integration verification can be re-used from previous projects −Effort can vary a lot depending on what is delivered by the IP provider (verification components)  Significant improvement potential on the IP provider side  Design for integration verification  Significant improvement potential on the SoC integrator side  Align on a common methodology Example project plan (based on 50% IP verification re-use)  Total effort reduced by 103 man weeks (approx 2 man years !)

12. 12 Agenda Introduction & Verification Landscape Focus on Integration Verification Challenges What does it cost ? The IP  Integrator Interface Example verification re-use methodology Conclusions Q & A

13. 13 IP  Integrator Interface for verification HW Integration (views delivered by IP suppliers that support integration) RTL SimulationEmulation IP Datasheet (functionality, interfaces, etc) & Maturity index Verification report … IP verification strategy/plan & results (RTL, N/L, FPGA) Code & functional coverage Checklist/maturity, limitations, waivers, and open issues Simulation vectors Full & reduced set for integration IP specification & integration reviews (ideally face-2-face) Joint silicon bring-up & validation Simulation models as needed to support testbench Emulation models as needed to support mapping BFMs, eVC’s, OVC’s XML register description to support test creation Interface & protocol assertion checkers

14. 14 Agenda Introduction & Verification Landscape Focus on Integration Verification Challenges What does it cost ? The IP  Integrator Interface Example verification re-use methodology Conclusions Q & A

15. 15 Verification SW – Methodology Overview Objective: Enable IP suppliers to deliver IP integration tests Implementation Software-centric verification approach ‘C’ tests run on any embedded processor (or transactor) Non-invasive and runs on all implementation levels SystemC, RTL, netlist, FPGA, emulation, silicon API defined to ensure standard methodology Allows IP supplier to define: In-context connectivity verification test Register tests can be generated automatically from IP-XACT metadata Inter-operability test with generic platform functions interrupt, DMA, clock, reset, power IP context information is applied at the SoC integration phase Allows automatic test program generation from suitable integration environment

16. 16 Verification SW – Re-Use Example SoC CPU CGUINTCDMA SoC Integrator (Chip context applied) IP Bus Interface IOs Logic IP Bus Interface IP Supplier  IP supplier delivers STANDARDIZED verification components  Plug and Play Integration Verification Verification SW IO-Stub CPU Verification SW IO-Stub

17. 17 Agenda Introduction & Verification Landscape Focus on Integration Verification Challenges What does it cost ? The IP  Integrator Interface Example verification re-use methodology Conclusions Q & A

18. 18 Conclusions Verification continues to consume significant time & effort for complex SoCs Design re-use is now well established Verification re-use needs to catch up ! IP is usually delivered with support for integration verification, but lacks consistency between suppliers There’s a big difference between ‘re-usable’ and ‘almost re-usable’ ! Proprietary approaches have emerged to overcome lack of industry standards, but these are not robust against industry dynamics Overall …. Design IP is a MUST IP support for integration verification is a MUST Need more standardisation of approach

19. 19 Agenda Introduction & Verification Landscape Focus on Integration Verification Challenges What does it cost ? The IP  Integrator Interface Example verification re-use methodology Conclusions Q & A