LOW POWER TEST PATTERN GENERATION FOR SYSTEM ON CHIP DEVICES by AFTAB FAROOQI, B.S.E.E., M.B.A.

A THESIS IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING Approved

Richard Gale Chairperson of the Committee

Tim Dallas Accepted

John Borrelli Dean of the Graduate School May, 2006

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Gale, my mentor for the entire MSEE Program, especially for his leadership in guiding me to define the scope of the thesis and helping me identify key milestones towards the completion of the project. Many thanks to Dr. Dallas for helping me break-down the overall thesis project to smaller manageable sub-projects. Thanks to Dr. Nutter for his assistance in helping me experiment the project using Xilinx. Dr. Karp always made herself available to help me decipher signal processing attributes included in the many IEEE papers I had to read for deeper understanding of the issues. Dr. Parten who was always there to help me breakdown complex issues included in the IEEE papers to simple algorithms for better conceptual understanding. Dr. Mitra for her guidance in helping me understand complex mathematical concepts behind signal processing algorithms. I would like to honor Dr. Chris Monico of the mathematics department for helping me better understand random number generation theory especially the correlation between complex polynomials, matrices and LFSRs. (Linear Feedback Shift Registers).

ii

Dr. Monicos assistance was pivotal in helping me grasp the fundamental mathematical concepts behind a very complex subject of low power pattern generation. I would also like to thank Dr. Temkins candid and sincere steering to help me focus on the fundamental semiconductor manufacturing concepts for stronger technical foundation.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Project Motivation Project Objectives Thesis Outline II. SOC BACKGROUND SOC Attributes SOC Design Tools and Methodology SOC Power Consumption SOC Manufacturing Processes SOC Test and Assembly III. SOC TEST SOC Test Tools and Methodology Test Approaches (External and Conventional DFT) Built-In-Self-Test (BIST) BIST Pattern Generation Using LFSR IV. LOW POWER PATTERN GENERATION Idea Behind Low Power Test Pattern Generation iv

ii vi viii ix

1 1 3 4 6 6 7 10 11 13 16 16 18 19 21 27 27

A Technique to Produce Low Power Pattern for BIST Benchmark Design Circuits V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Simulation Using Standard LFSR Pattern Simulation Using LP-LFSR Power Consumption Using standard LFSR Power Consumption Using LP-LFSR Power Consumption Comparison (Standard LFSR versus LP-LFSR) Summary and Conclusion VI. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

29 34

39 40 41 43 44 46 49

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES A. B. C. D. PATTERN GENERATION CONTROLLER VERILOG TESTBENCH XILINX REPORTS C432 VERILOG CODE

51 54 54 62 68 91

ABSTRACT

State of the art developments in the semiconductor manufacturing processes, integrated chip design methodology, availability of thousand plus pin integrated circuit (IC) packaging options and efficient IC test techniques have contributed immensely towards the integration of entire system on a chip. These System-On-Chip (SOC) devices can include multiple microprocessors, various types of memories such as SRAM, Flash and ROM, Digital Signal Processor(s), dozens of IP blocks and user defined logic. Various SOC test techniques have been innovated in the last decade to test complex mixed signal systems on a chip in a cost effective manner. The test industry has made great strides in developing new automated test equipment which can test logic, memory and analog components of the chip via external interface to the IC. Advances in the Built-In-Self-Test (BIST) techniques has enabled IC testing using a combination of external automated test equipment and BIST Controller on the chip.

vi

The power consumption of the chip during manufacturing test can be significantly higher than the power consumption of the chip in its target system. This increase in the power consumption can be attributed primarily to on-chip extremely random test pattern generation. This thesis probes into the various IC test approaches such as external, internal and embedded with specific investigation into the low power test stimulus generation. A new low power pattern generation technique is implemented. Conventional and low power test patterns are applied on an industry standard ISCAS-85 c432 27-channel interrupt controller circuit and average power consumption is measured. The results indicate 60% lower power consumption by the circuit using the new approach for an identical fault coverage of 98% in both cases.

vii

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 3.1 5.1

ITRS Roadmap by Product Present/Next State of the Flip-Flops Power Consumption Analysis

12 22 46

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

IC Design Process Test Methodology IEEE 1149.1 TAP LFSR Companion Matrix Maximal Length LFSR LP-LFSR ISCAS-85 c432 27-Channel Interrupt Controller ISCAS-85 c432 M1 ISCAS-85 c432 M2 ISCAS-85 c432 M3 ISCAS-85 c432 M4 ISCAS-85 c432 M5 8-bit LFSR 8-bit Maximal Length LFSR LP-LFSR Pattern Simulation Power Estimation Flow

9 17 21 22 23 24 28 35 36 37 37 38 38 40 40 41 42

ix

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

Project Motivation System-On-Chip (SOC) Integrated Circuits (ICs) are designed and manufactured to meet application specific functional requirements. Some examples of applications are camera-on-a-chip, MP3 player, etc. These functional requirements often need to be balanced with the desired IC performance, maximum allowable power consumption and overall packaged and tested IC cost. Generally total power consumption of the device is a sum of the power consumed by the core and I/Os13. Appropriate package attributes such as the material and thermal properties need to be selected to ensure maximum heat dissipation of the die through the package. IC Architects normally have a specific power consumption budget for the SOC based on the overall system level power budget. Functional operation of the device in a system usually consumes power either at or under the budgeted power for the IC. However the same device under

Manufacturing test especially with BIST controller and random pattern generator can consume more power than the budgeted power 1 . This increase in the power consumption of the IC in the test mode is well known in the industry to cause sudden un-repairable device failures resulting in significant manufacturing fall-out directly impacting the cost of the IC. Today a combination of external Automated Test Equipment (ATE) and internal BIST (Built-In-Self-Test) techniques are used to ensure the highest possible fault coverage of the device at the lowest possible cost 2,3 . IC testing using exclusively external ATEs can require SOC architects to allocate a fairly large number of pins of the device to invoke the test procedure and run vectors into and through the various blocks of the device such as memory, user defined logic, dedicated functional macros, etc. Combination of external ATEs and internal BIST however can result in, utilizing far fewer external pins on the IC but at the cost of embedding test logic inside the device 4 .

Project objectives Test Pattern generation has long been carried out by using conventional Linear Feedback Shift Registers (LFSRs 5 ). LFSRs are a series of flip-flops connected in series with feedback taps defined by the generator polynomial 6 . The seed value is loaded into the outputs of the flip-flops. The only input required to generate a random sequence is an external clock where each clock pulse can produce a unique pattern at the output of the flip-flops. This random sequence at the output of the flip-flops can be used as a test pattern. The number of inputs required by the circuit under test must match with the number of flip-flop outputs of the LFSR. This test pattern is run on the circuit under test for desired fault coverage. The power consumed by the chip under test is a measure of the switching activity of the logic inside the chip which depends largely on the randomness of the applied input stimulus. Reduced correlation between the successive vectors of the applied stimulus into the circuit under test can result in much higher power consumption by the device than the budgeted power. A new low power pattern generation technique is implemented using a modified conventional Linear Feedback Shift Register 7 .

Conventional as well as low power test patterns are run on an industry standard benchmark circuit. The instantaneous and peak power consumption 8 of the circuit is measured using industry standard Xilinx tool called xPower and it is demonstrated that the new low power approach results in significantly lower power consumption by the circuit under test compared with the power consumption by the circuit using the conventional pattern for the same fault coverage.

Thesis outline Chapter 2 reviews SOCs and their attributes with some insight into the application specific Intellectual Property (IP) requirements. It also provides an overview of the IC manufacturing processes, design/test tools and methodology, discusses the various types of power consumed by the device during normal operation and under manufacturing test. It also provides a brief insight into the chip assembly process. Chapter 3 investigates into the IC test tools and methodology particularly external, internal and a combination of external/internal approaches. The concept of BIST architecture and its components is explained along with the explanation of LFSR, a circuit very commonly

used to generate random test patterns. The correlation of the LFSR, its characteristic polynomial and matrix theory is described 9,10 . Chapter 4 begins with a description of a pattern generated using a conventional LFSR. It explains in detail the idea behind the low power pattern generation in particular the low power technique designed using two levels of logic between the outputs of the LFSR and the actual outputs coming out of the second level of logic. Standard tools such as Verilog HDL, Xilinx, and Mentors Modelsim are used for design description, synthesis, simulation and power consumption estimation. A brief background of the commonly used industry standard benchmark circuits is also provided. Chapter 5 begins with the methodology used to determine the power consumption by the c432 benchmark circuit using the conventional pattern. It explains the methodology used for computing power consumption by the ISCAS-85 benchmark circuit c432 (27-channel interrupt controller) using the low power pattern. A comparison of the circuit power consumption is discussed between the two techniques. Chapter 6 provides some recommendations on future work.

CHAPTER II SOC BACKGROUND

SOC Attributes SOCs typically integrate multiple Microprocessors, various types of memories such as SRAM, ROM, Flash, user defined logic, etc. Most SOCs are heavily populated with multiple instances of memory. Also included can be IP macros such as Digital Signal Processors, Analog to digital converters, etc 11 . SOCs typically contain multiple types of I/Os ranging from standard CMOS, LVTTL to high speed I/Os such as LVDS (Low voltage differential signal). The pin count can range from a few hundred pins to over a thousand with custom designed packages including multiple layers of substrate. SOCs are solution driven with the intent of providing a single chip solution for particular applications such as digital cameras, MP3 players, storage drives, printers, networking, etc. SOCs for the Consumer electronics typically include mixed signal components such as A/D, D/A, multiple instances of SRAM, Flash, ROM and user defined logic.

Networking and Storage applications tend to be extremely compute intensive and therefore it is not uncommon to find these devices containing multiple microprocessor cores along with many megabits of memory and high speed I/Os operating in the giga-bit per second range. Increasing the complexity of the SOC designs besides higher level of IP integration are other factors such as multiple clock domains ranging from a few kHz to as high as few GHz. Each clock domain is typically responsible for running a specific portion of the chip 12 . Power consumption of the device normally includes power consumed by the core of the chip plus power consumed by the I/Os 13 . Most SOC die are packaged in multiple substrate packages with some level of signal routing in the package substrates. Various types of packages such as QuadFlat-Packs, Ball Grid Arrays, etc can be custom designed (e.g. Plastic or Ceramic) to meet the required power dissipation of the SOC die.

SOC Design Tools and Methodology Generally the architecture of the entire SOC is designed and simulated by chip architects. Front end designers are involved in converting the

architecture level IC requirements to detailed circuit level descriptions using design description languages such as Verilog, VHDL, etc. Depending on the complexity of the overall IC project, it is not uncommon to find front end design teams ranging from tens of engineers to a few hundred spending anywhere from 6 months to a year on the entire device design. Back-end Design Engineering typically entails converting the circuit level description to a physical description format used by the foundries for IC Manufacturing. Again this task can also require a large number of engineers depending on the physical size of the chip. The entire SOC is simulated at an architecture level for the required functional performance. Individual modules are synthesized and verified for their respective functionality. Design verification is performed iteratively before and after each stage of the entire IC design (Front-End to Back-End) process. Verification results are compared between the pre and post processing of each design stage to ensure compliance to the required specification and easier root cause analysis in case of any errors. Figure 2.1 below shows typical IC Design methodology before the formal hand-off to the foundry for manufacturing. The methodology includes Design Description, Logic Synthesis and Optimization, Pre-Layout

Simulation, Place and Route, Post Layout Simulation, DRC/LVS, GDS11 and mask generation.

Figure 2.1 IC Design Methodology

9

It is important to note that continuing advances in the inclusion of the advanced Manufacturing process parameters in the front end IC Design libraries and tools is expected to shrink the gap between the Front-end and Back-end design tasks. This can result in requiring Front-end Design Engineers to perform their tasks conforming to not only circuit design limitations but also compliant to manufacturing constraints. In addition to design for manufacturing, design for test approach is mandating the chip design and test architects to include built-in self-test controllers and test pattern generation inside the chip. While this mandate can result in many benefits such as lower cost of test, etc it can also increase the die size and power consumption.

SOC Power Consumption Estimating the IC power budget involves maintaining perspective of several technical and business factors such as process technology, cell design libraries, pin-out and package constraints, logic and IP macro clock domains, cost and time pressures, etc.

10

IC architects are required to select the optimum combination of these elements to be able to achieve not only a functional device but also cost competitive and meeting customer schedule. Total power consumption of the CMOS device is the sum of static power, dynamic power, leakage and short crcuit11. Static power can be defined as the power consumed by the CMOS gate under no switching activity. It is normally attributed to the leakage currents in the device. Dynamic power on the other hand is a direct result of the switching activity of the gate and is generally most of the power consumed by the device. The more the gates toggle or change states under various load conditions, the more dynamic power is consumed. Short circuit power of the cell is caused by the temporary short circuit between the N and P transistors of the gate during logic transitions.

SOC Manufacturing Processes As evident in Table 2.1 below CMOS Manufacturing process technology developers have made remarkable strides in shrinking the gate length with majority of the present day SOCs manufactured in 0.18 and

11

smaller process geometries. It is common to find devices using both Al and Cu interconnects with low-k dielectric materials.

Table 2.1 ITRS roadmap by Product

Year of Production DRAM stagger-contacted Metal 1 M1 1/2 pitch (nm) MPU/ASIC stagger-contacted Metal M1 1/2 pitch (nm) Flash Uncontacted Poly Si 1/2 pitch (nm) MPU Printed Gate Length (nm) MPU Physical gate Length (nm) 2005 80 90 76 54 32 2006 70 78 64 48 28 2007 65 68 57 42 25 2008 57 59 51 38 23 2009 50 52 45 34 20 2010 45 45 40 30 18 2011 40 40 36 27 16 2012 36 36 32 24 14 2013 32 32 28 21 13

Sub nanometer manufacturing technologies have enabled millions of transistors to be packed in few millimeter squared die sizes. The ability to manufacture these many transistors has driven the integration of entire subsystems and in most cases complete systems on a chip. On the other hand EDA tool developers have kept up with their pace on developing advanced tools linking Design for Test and Design for Manufacturing. More than a decade old concept of Design for Test has been extended to Design for Manufacturing. Today there are tools available to validate the Manufacturing viability of the designs before getting to the Foundry18.

12

The advanced ability to estimate the yield of the chip with circuit design as well as manufacturing constraints has resulted in significant cost savings in the entire supply chain of IC design and manufacturing. The cell library and IP developers have diligently kept up with the design and development of the various types of libraries such as low power, small size, etc and cores such as Microprocessors, DSPs, Memories, etc respectively. The ability to select and integrate pre-verified silicon proven IP blocks on a single substrate has made significant contribution toward the design and production of entire systems on a chip for a variety of market applications.

SOC Test and Assembly The scope of IC test can range from wafer level (ensure good wafer) testing to individual die on the wafer and at the packaged chip level. The selection of a type and/or a combination of these tests can be driven by multiple factors such as the complexity of the chip, test cost, price of the chip as determined by the market, etc. For example it may be cost prohibitive to run very small chip (order of few thousand gates in a small 48pin QFP package targeted for market price of sub $1) through each of these

13

phases. The total test cost for these phases combined can easily surpass the individual die or package cost resulting in the price of the chip deemed unbearable by the market3. Design for Test is a common approach used in architecting and implementing complex SOCs. IP level (Microprocessors, A/D, PLL, Memory, etc) functional verification and manufacturing tests are often performed by the IP providers before the IP is integrated into the SOC. SOC Designers however still need to include test logic on the chip to be able to test the IP in the overall system design environment. User-defined Logic is commonly verified using an FPGA before integrating it on the chip. Again it is incumbent upon the SOC design team to include logic for test on the chip to test user defined logic along with the other blocks of the chip. A combination of external testing using Automated Test Equipment and internal testing using memBIST , LogicBIST, IPBIST, SCAN, etc techniques are used to verify the overall functionality of the SOC. Die and Package assembly is a function of the die size and type of package. Commonly used package types include QFPs and BGAs. The cavity of the package is indicative of the die size that can be accommodated

14

in the package. SOC suppliers can choose to test the IC at the package level and ignore tests at the wafer and/or die level. This is primarily done to save costs. (SOC cost is the sum of the die, package and test/assembly cost).

15

CHAPTER III SOC TEST

SOC Test Tools and Methodology As noted in chapter 2 it is imperative to verify the functional and manufacturing viability of the individual IP components before integrating them into the SOC design. Most cores are offered with the wrapper logic around the IP which is used as the interconnect between the design blocks. Internal design details of IP macros are typically not shared by the IP provider as that information is considered confidential. SOC testing is best viewed as an iterative process comprised of a series of tests. Figure 3.1 shows a test methodology. Either flat or hierarchical approach can be used depending on the complexity of the device. As the complexity of the device increases it is often recommended to test individual components using Scan and/or BIST as opposed to testing the entire design using a flat approach. The flat approach would essentially flatten the entire designs netlist, apply stimulus at the primary inputs of the design and test outputs at the primary outputs. This approach does not

16

provide the ability to observe the logic at the interconnects between the various blocks of the design.

Figure 3.1 Test Methodology An advantage of testing the SOC using a hierarchical approach is its inherent ability to isolate and correct the problem piecewise. Test input stimulus is applied to a particular macro with the outputs observed and verified.

17

External ATE testers can include Logic, Memory, Processor and Mixed-signal test specific boards. Conventional Design for test approaches include Scan and Built-In-Self test. Most SOC designs today however include an embedded test approach which involves using a combination of external low cost Digital tester and on-chip test logic for stimulus generation, output analysis and compression, diagnostics, timing, power management, etc 14 .

Test Approaches (External ATE, Conventional DFT and Embedded4 ) Embedded test is a natural evolution of the two distinct approaches discussed thus far namely external ATE and DFT. External ATE approach requires a mix of very expensive low/high speed testers with varying bandwidth. These testers can be configured to provide function specific test ability for high speed logic, memory, analog to digital converters, etc. DFT approach on the other hand is predominantly based on using Scan and BIST test architectures. Scan test involves replacing the generic flip-flops of the design with scan enabled flip-flops along with the insertion of multiple scan chains around the design. Test input stimulus can be

18

propagated either through the individual portion of the design or the entire device for functional verification. Embedded test integrates the high speed and high bandwidth portions of the external ATE directly into the IC and can be considered as the main objective of the embedded test approach. Automatic test pattern generation/Fault Simulation tools can be used to generate, integrate, analyze and verify test pattern development. One of the key benefits of the embedded test is in the on-chip test data generation which reduces the volume of external patterns and can be customized per the IP block type in the SOC. On-chip go/no-go and data compression reduces ATE data logging. On-chip timing generation achieves true at speed tests that can be scaled to match manufacturing process technology performance. The downside of on-chip data generation however is the increase in the power consumption of the device in the test mode.

Built-In Self Test (BIST) BIST is a hierarchical DFT strategy that reduces the need for external test. With BIST a micro-tester complete with a pattern generator is brought onto the chip enabling the chip to test itself. Although the micro-tester

19

requires more silicon area, the savings realized through automation of the testing process makes this DFT method very attractive. BIST logic is composed of pattern generation, pattern capture and compare and self test control. BIST can be used for low speed as well as high speed testing. BIST uses on-chip controllers for memory, logic, etc. These controllers are typically accessed via an external interface defined by the various IEEE standards. IEEE standard 1149.1 as shown in Figure 3.2 defines the test access port composed of 5 external pins for initializing BIST operation, monitoring and reading results. The benefits of BIST are higher quality testing, faster time to market and lower costs. Chips can be tested at speed without incurring yield losses because of tester inaccuracy. BIST automates a higher degree of the test development process and simplifies the development of test programs. BIST reduces the dependency on expensive ATE. High end ATE costs are approximately five million U.S. dollars. This need is attributed to more memory to store large patterns, faster pin electronics, BIST solves the ATE cost problem by moving data directly onto the chip4.

20

Figure 3.2 IEEE 1149.1 TAP

BIST Pattern Generation using LFSR Linear Feedback Shift Register is a circuit consisting of flip-flops connected in series with each other. The output of one flip-flop is connected to the input of the next flip flop and so on. The feedback polynomial which is also known as the characteristic polynomial is used to determine the feedback taps which in turn determines the length of the random pattern generation. An example below in Figure 3.3 is used to illustrate a correlation between the LFSR, its characteristic polynomial and matrix theory. In the circuit the feedback taps are shown to be from the output of the 4th and 1st register.

21

Figure 3.3 LFSR

These taps are indicative of the generator polynomial. According to this polynomial the present and the next state of these registers are shown in Figure 3T(R1, R2, R3, R4 and R1=R1R4, R2 = R1, R3 = R2 and R4 = R3).

Table 3.1 Present/Next State

Present State R1 R2 R3 R4 Next State R1 R4 R1 R2 R3

Using the matrix theory the companion matrix required for relating the present to the next state is depicted in Figure 3.4 below. The actual sequence of the LFSR is represented as BT, BT2, BT3, .where B is the

22

seed vector. The determinant of the T matrix is called the characteristic polynomial and the generator polynomial is the inverse of the characteristic polynomial.

0 1

1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Figure 3.4 T Companion Matrix

Det(T) = [xI T] {Characteristic Polynomial} Where I is the identity matrix Generator Polynomial = Inverse of the Characteristic Polynomial As an example the characteristic polynomial for the above circuit is = X4 + X3 + 1 and the generator polynomial is represented as X4 +X +1. Normally the feedback taps are selected such that entire sequence is generated including all zeros and ones. The generation of all zeros pattern requires an additional NOR gate whose inputs are the outputs of all flip-

23

flops in the LFSR. The output of the NOR gate is fed into the input of the first flip-flop in the circuit as shown in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5 Maximal Length LFSR

The outputs of the LFSR are initially loaded with a combination of 1s and 0s normally referred to as the seed vector. Proper selection of the generator polynomial is important in order to ensure the generation of the entire sequence. Common Clock signal is applied to the entire chain of flipflops which essentially enables the propagation of the logic values present at the inputs to the flip-flop outputs. These random outputs are used as the input stimulus for circuit to be tested. Normally this random pattern can be propagated through a known

24

good circuit and the output of the circuit is captured using a MISR (MultiInput Shift Register). The MISR output also known as the good signature is then used to compare with the signature obtained for other similar circuits. One of the drawbacks of generating a pattern using the above approach is the reduced correlation 15 between the bits (output bits of the LFSR) of the successive vectors. This can attribute to one of the key differences between the vectors used for functional verification of the IC in the system environment compared to the vectors used in the manufacturing test environment. In a functional operation environment, the input stimulus is generated by the component(s) of the system interfacing with the device under test and therefore can have better correlation between the successive vectors. Additionally the number of vectors generated in a functional test environment can be much lower than the number of vectors generated by the LFSR. This increase in the number of test vectors combined with reduced correlation between the bits can result in significant increase in the switching activity of the circuit under test and therefore increased power consumption of the device in the Manufacturing Test environment.

25

The increased power consumption by the device in the manufacturing test environment therefore can in most cases exceed the maximum power consumption specification of the IC resulting in un-repairable device failures begins with a pattern generated using a conventional LFSR causing significant loss of yield.

26

CHAPTER IV LOW POWER PATTERN GENERATION

Idea behind low power test pattern generation One way to improve the correlation between the bits of the successive vectors is to avoid frequent transitioning of the logic levels (1 0 or 0 1) of the primary inputs. The new approach entails inserting 3 intermediate vectors between every two successive vectors. The total number of signal transitions between these 5 vectors is equal to the total number of signal transitions between the 2 successive vectors generated using the conventional approach. This reduction of signal transition activity in the primary inputs reduces the switching activity inside the design under test and therefore results in reduced power Consumption by the device under test. The additional circuitry used to accomplish the generation of the 3 intermediate vectors is minimal at best consisting of few logic gates. The pattern generation controller which is designed using Verilog as shown in Appendix A can be very easily modified for the required number of LFSR outputs.

27

The number of LFSR outputs required is driven by the number of test inputs required for circuit under test. The technique of inserting 3 intermediate vectors is achieved by modifying the conventional LFSR circuit with two additional levels of logic between the conventional flip-flop outputs and the low power outputs as shown in Figure 4.1. The first level of hierarchy from the top down includes logic circuit design for propagating either the present or the next state of the flip-flops to the second level of hierarchy. The second level of hierarchy is a multiplexer function that provides for selecting between the two states (present or next) to be propagated to the outputs as low power output.

Figure 4.1 LP-LFSR

28

In the simulation environment, the outputs of the flip-flops are loaded with the seed vector. The feedback taps are selected pertinent to the characteristic polynomial x8 + x + 1. Only 2 inputs pins, namely test enable and clock are required to activate the generation of the pattern as well as simulation of the design circuit. It is also noteworthy here that the intermediate vectors in addition to aiding in reducing the number of transitions can also empirically assist in detecting faults just as good as the conventional LFSR patterns.

Description of the technique to produce low power pattern for BIST The following is a description of a low power test pattern generation technique as depicted in the 9-bit LFSR based schematic in Figure 4.1. Verilog based test bench as shown in Appendix B is used in assigning the initial output states (0100 1011) of the 9-bit LFSR. The feedback taps are designed for maximal length LFSR generating all zeros and all ones as well. The first step is to generate T1, the first vector by enabling (clocking) the first 4-bits of the LFSR and disabling (not clocking) the last 4 bits. This Shifts the first 4 bits to the right by one bit. The feedback bits of the LFSR are the outputs of the 8th and the first flip-flop. The output of the 8th flip-flop

29

is 1 and the output of the first flip-flop is 0. The exclusive-or of the 8th-flip-flop (logic 1 in this case) and the first flip-flop(logic 0 in this case) is input (1 EXOR 0 = 1 into the first D flip-flop. The new pattern in the first four bits of the LFSR is 1010. Note that the shaded register is clocked along with the first 4 bits of the LFSR. So the input of the shaded flip-flop is the output of the 4th flip-flop which in this case is 0. Also note that prior to the first clock, the input of the shaded register was the seed value of the 4th flip-flop at the output of the 4th flip-flop which in this case is 0. So after the first clock this value of 0 will now appear at the output of the shaded flip-flop. In other words the value of the 4th output is stored in this shaded register and is used in the next few steps. The first 4 shifted bits of the LFSR and the last 4 un-shifted bits (i.e. the seed value) are propagated as T1 (1010 1011) to the final outputs. Next few steps involve generating the 3 intermediate patterns from T1. These patterns are defined as Ta, Tb and Tc. Ta is generated by maintaining (disabling the clock to the first 4 bits) the first four bits of the LFSR outputs (as is from T1) as the final first four low power outputs 1010. Note that the clock to the last four bits of the LFSR is also disabled. The last four bits however are the outputs from

30

the injector circuits. The injector circuit compares the next value (@ the input of the D-flip-flop) with the current value (@ the output of the D-flip-flop). According to T1, the outputs (current values) of the last 4 bits of the LFSR are 1011. The next values are the values at the inputs of the D-flipflops which in this case are 0101. Compare the current values (1011) bit by bit with the next values (0101). If the values bit by bit are not the same then use the random generator feedback R (in this case is logic 1) as the bit value as shown in the schematic above. If however both values bit by bit are the same then propagate that bit value to output as opposed to the R bit. This bit by bit comparison gives us the last four bits of Ta to be 1111. Therefore Ta = 1010 1111. Next step is to generate Tb. Shift the last 4 flip-flops to the right one bit but do not shift the first 4 flip-flops to the right. The clock to the first 4 bits plus the shaded flip-flop is disabled. The clock to the last 4 bits is enabled. Propagate the outputs of the flip-flops of the entire LFSR as opposed to the outputs of the injection circuit to the outputs (low power). The injection circuits are disabled.

31

As in Ta, maintain the first four LFSR outputs (1010) as the low power outputs. Again from Ta, the inputs of the last four D flip-flops from the previous step (generating Ta) are 0101. Also note that the output of the shaded register is 0 from the previous step (generating Ta). Therefore the input of the 5th flip-flop is a 0. The outputs of the last 4 flip-flops are 0101 resulting in Tb = 1010 0101. The 3rd intermediate vector Tc is generated via disabling the clock to the entire LFSR. Propagate the first 4 outputs from the injection circuit as the first 4 low power outputs and maintain the last 4 low power outputs the same as Tb. Generating injection circuit outputs for Tc is conceptually the same as explained above in generating Ta. Current values (@ the outputs of the flip-flops) of the first four flip-flops are compared with the next values (@ the inputs of the flip-flops) of the flip-flops. The feedback from the 8th flip-flop is 1 (please see generating Tb). Therefore the logical feed forward value of R is 1. The feedback value from the first flip-flop is also 1 as per the current values above. The exclusive or of two ones is a 0. Therefore the input to the first flip-flop is a 0 which is also the next state of the first flip-flop. Hence the next values are 0 for the first flip-flop and 101 for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th flip-flop respectively. The next

32

values are 0101. The first four outputs from the injection circuit are 1111. The last 4 outputs are the same as Tb which are 0101 resulting in the 3rd and final intermediate vector Tc = 1111 0101. Generating T2 is quite similar to generating T1. As in Tc the outputs of the last four LFSR flops are 0101. The outputs of the first 4 flip-flops of the LFSR are the current values which are 1010. Therefore the seed vector for generating T2 is 1010 0101. Shift the first four bits of the LFSR plus the shaded flip-flop. Do not clock the last four flip-flops. Propagate the outputs of the entire LFSR to the final low power outputs. The output of the 8th flip-flop from the previous step (generating Tc) is a 1 and the output of the first flip-flop from the previous step (generating Tc) is also a 1. The exclusive or of the output of the 8th flip-flop and the first flip-flop is 0. Therefore the input to the first flip-flop will be a 0. The inputs to the 2nd, 3rd , 4th and the shaded flip-flops are 1010. These are also the current values from the previous step (generating Tc). Shifting the first four flipflops of the LFSR to the right by one bit results in 0101 as the outputs of the

33

first four flip-flops. Therefore T2 generated is 0101 0101. This concept of low power pattern generation is extended to 36-bits required for the design circuit indicated in section 4.3.

Benchmark Design Circuits Several Industry standard benchmark circuits such as ISCAS-85, ISCAS-89, etc can be used to test new design, test and manufacturing approaches and technologies. Following is a brief description of one of the ISCAS-85 circuits used for the purpose of testing the new low power pattern generation scheme described above. c432 is a 27-channel interrupt controller. The input channels are grouped into three 9-bit buses (we call them A, B and C), where the bit position within each bus determines the interrupt request priority. A forth 9bit input bus (called E) enables and disables interrupt requests within the respective bit positions. Figure 4.4 below shows the c432 circuit. Figures 4.5 to 4.9 below show the logic of the underlying modules.

34

Figure 4.4 ISCAS-85 C432 27-channel interrupt controller The interrupt controller has three interrupt request buses A, B and C, each having nine bits or channels, and one channel-enable bus E. The following priority rules apply: A[i] > B[j] > C[k], for any i, j, k; i.e., bus A has the highest priority and bus C the lowest. Within each bus, a channel with a higher index has priority over one with a lower index; for example, A[i] > A[j], if i > j. If E[i] = 0, then the A[i], B[i], and C[i] inputs are disregarded.

35

The seven outputs PA, PB, PC and Chan[3:0] specify which channels have acknowledged interrupt requests. Only the channel of highest priority in the requesting bus of highest priority is acknowledged. One exception is that if two or more interrupts produce requests on the channel that is acknowledged, each bus is acknowledged. For example, if A[4], A[2], B[6] and C[4] have requests pending, A[4] and C[4] are acknowledged. Figure 4.9 is a 9-line-to-4-line priority encoder.

Figure 4.5 ISCAS-85 c432 M1

Figure 4.6 ISCAS-85 c432 M2

36

Figure 4.7 ISCAS-85 c432 M3

Figure 4.8 ISCAS-85 c432 M4

37

Figure 4.9 ISCAS-85 c432

38

CHAPTER V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Simulation using standard LFSR pattern The standard 36-bit pattern is generated using the LFSR configuration as shown in figure 5.1 below. The schematic in the case of conventional pattern generation consists of 36 flip-flops connected in series. The design is modified as indicated in figure 5.2 below with feedback taps to generate a maximal length pattern generator including all 0s and 1s. The number of vectors expected in this case are 236. The outputs of the 36-bit LFSR are used as the inputs to the c432 ISCAS-85 interrupt controller design circuit. A common clock is supplied to all flip-flops. A seed value is assigned to the output of each flip-flop. Each clock pulse thereafter shifts the logic value present at the input of the flip-flop to its output.

39

Figure 5.1 8-bit LFSR

Figure 5.2 Maximal 8-bit LFSR

Simulation Using LP-LFSR LP-LFSR pattern is generated as shown in Figure 5.3 below. The simulation report confirms the number of signal transitions between the bits of the successive vectors to be the same for both patterns namely, conventional and LP-LFSR.

40

Figure 5.3 LP-LFSR Pattern Simulation

Power consumption using standard conventional pattern The methodology used to estimate the power consumption is similar to the one used for the low power pattern generator. As shown in figure 5.4 the design circuit is simulated in the Xilinx ISE development environment using Mentor Graphics ModelSim. The number of test vectors is restricted in order to contain the Verilog Core Dump file to a manageable size for power consumption analysis.

41

Fig 5.4 Power Estimation Flow

42

The VCD file contains the switching activity of the design circuit for the number of test vectors. The number of test vectors is obtained from a Fault simulation tool called TetraMax from Synopsys. This tool takes the VCD file as the input file along with the c432 interrupt controller design file and produces the number of test vectors required for the desired fault coverage. Another way of generating specific number of vectors is by using the clock period and simulation time. For instance if the clock period is 60ns and the simulation time is 60us. The number of vectors produced will be 60us/60ns = 1000. Using the standard pattern, the ATPG tool generates 330 vectors for 98% fault coverage which translates to approximately 16mw power consumption by the c432 circuit.

Power consumption using low power pattern The key to achieving Low power consumption in System-On-Chip devices is by reducing the switching activity in the device under test. The low power technique described in chapter 4 improves the correlation between the signals of the successive vectors (i.e. input stimulus to the

43

circuit under test) resulting in reduced transitions of the primary inputs hence reducing switching activity inside the circuit under test. The methodology used in estimating the power consumption 16,17 of the device under test includes the generation of the 36-bit low power pattern, synthesizing the c432 circuit using generic libraries, running the 36-bit pattern on the c432 circuit and computing the power consumption using a power estimation EDA tool. Circuit Simulation is implemented using Mentors ModelSim tool in the Xilinx ISE development environment. It is important to restrict the simulation time (i.e. number of test vectors) to a few microseconds in order to contain the VCD file to a manageable size for the purpose of evaluating the switching activity. Xilinx xPower tool is used to read in the VCD file for power consumption estimation. TetraMax was used to determine the number of test vectors required for the desired fault coverage. Power consumed by the c432 circuit is observed to be 10mw using 370 vectors for 98% fault coverage. Detailed reports on synthesis, simulation and power estimation are included in Appendix C.

Power Consumption Comparison (Standard LFSR vs LP-LFSR)

44

Two test benches are designed using Verilog as labeled in Appendix B. The first test bench uses a conventional test pattern generator and the second test bench uses a low power pattern generator. Both test benches are used to simulate a common design circuit which in this case is an industry standard 27-channel interrupt controller benchmark circuit. Verilog code for c432 is included in Appendix D. Both test benches are designed to use the same pre-defined clock period as well as identical simulation time. This ensures the same number of test vectors generated by both test benches. The number of gates used by the interrupt controller are 250 as indicated by the synthesis reports from the Xilinx development environment. Logic gates used by the conventional test bench are 60 and the number of gates used by the low power test bench are 135. TetraMax ATPG and Fault simulation tool is used to estimate the number of test vectors required for 98% fault coverage of the interrupt controller. The tool generated 330 vectors for the conventional test bench and 370 vectors for the low power test bench. Both test benches produced almost the same number of test vectors for the desired fault coverage thus demonstrating about the same test time used in both cases.

45

The two VCD files (for conventional and low power pattern) containing the interrupt controllers switching activity were used for power consumption estimation by Xilinx xPower power analysis tool. xPower calculates the average power consumed by the circuit for each test vector applied by observing the logic value at each internal and external node of the circuit. The transition in the logic value at each node (1 0 or 0 1) results in the dynamic power consumption by the gate of the Xilinx Spartan 2 device. Total power consumed by the circuit is the sum of the power consumption by the circuit for each test vector. The reported power consumption estimates as indicated above demonstrates approximately 60% lower power consumption by the interrupt controller using the low power test bench as compared with the conventional pattern. This result demonstrates lower number of logic transitions at the internal and external nodes of the test circuit. The difference in the power consumption of the test logic between the two approaches (65 gates versus 135 gates is negligible).

46

Table 5.1 Power Consumption Comparison

Fault Coverage

# of Test Vectors

# of Gates in the Test Circuit

# of Gates in the Test Controller

Average Power Consumption

Conventional LFSR LP-LPSR

0.98 0.98

330.00 370.00

250 250

65 130

16mW 10mW

The configurable logic blocks and input/output blocks used in most field programmable gate arrays such as the Spartan 2 device are typically not optimized for lowest power consumption compared with some options of the gate array and Standard cell products. Therefore it is possible to achieve even lower power consumption by the circuit in an ASIC implementation compared with an FPGA.

Summary and Conclusion The System on a chip revolution challenges both design and test engineers especially in the area of power dissipation. Generally the chip consumes more power in the manufacturing test mode than in normal operation mode in its targeted system. The increase in the power
47

consumption can result in un-repairable damages in the chip directly impacting the overall yield and cost. This thesis investigates the fundamental process used for IC Design, Test and Manufacturing including design entry, tool flow methodology and handoff to Manufacturing. Specific detailed attention is focused on IC verification and test. Design-For-Test and Design-For-Manufacturing is the mainstream approach today for IC Design. This approach is mandating the entire SOC development team to collaborate very closely with each other in clearly articulating adequate test requirements and methodology as well as ensuring the manufacturability of the chip. Various test methodologies such as external (ATE based), DFTSCAN/BIST and embedded (combination of low cost external tester and SCAN/BIST) approaches are studied. The embedded approach is found to be prevalent in SOC testing. It may be easier, for the large Semiconductor component companies when compared with smaller Fabless companies, to justify the cost of expensive external ATE systems due to the higher utilization rate by the

48

former and inherent flexibility in expensive ATEs to integrate test (e.g. memory, mixed-signal, etc) specific electronics. Other trade-off factors such as the impact of the number of pins required in the device for test, external versus internal pattern generation, etc need to be carefully evaluated for the most optimum cost versus performance test solution. Including SCAN/BIST on the chip tends to increase the die size by a small percentage and the power consumption of the chip. The increase in the power consumption is attributed primarily to the increase in the circuits switching activity. Random pattern generation theory is investigated along with the correlation of the Linear Feedback Shift Register based PRPG, matrix theory, characteristic polynomial and the generator polynomial. A Technique to generate low power PRPG is implemented and applied on an industry standard benchmark circuit for power consumption estimation. The comparison of power consumption by the circuit demonstrates 60% lower power consumed by the circuit when using low power pattern as the input stimulus compared with the input stimulus generated by the conventional LFSR based PRPG.

49

CHAPTER VI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

SOC designs are making a rapid shift from mostly digital to mixed signal including millions of user defined logic gates and dozens of IP (Core as well as I/O based). IC Verification and Test strategy needs to include advanced controllers and pattern generators for testing digital as well as analog components of the chip. Pattern generation inside the chip is well known to cause increase in the power consumption of the IC during the manufacturing test. New design and test techniques need to be investigated to keep this increase in the power consumption by the chip as minimum as possible. The availability of advanced manufacturing process rules in the design/verification libraries and tool flow methodologies is mandating the IC front-end designers to verify the manufacturability of the chip much in advance in the design process . Therefore development of the new SOC DFT techniques needs to be compliant with the advanced DFM rules 18 .

50

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 1 Patrick Girard, Survey of Low-Power Testing of VLSI Circuits, IEEE Design and Test of Computers, May-June 2002, Volume: 19 , Issue: 3, page(s): 80 90, ISSN: 0740-7475 2 2 S. Zhang, et. al, Cost driven optimization of fault coverage in combined built-In-Self-Test/Automated Test Equipment Testing, IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference, May 18-20, 2004 3 3 L. Ungar and T. Ambler, Economics of Built-In-Self-Test, IEEE Design and Test of Computers, Sept.-Oct. 2001, Volume: 18 , Issue: 5, page(s): 70 79, ISSN: 0740-7475 4 4 Benoit Nadeau-Dostie, Design for AT-SPEED TEST, DIAGNOSIS and MESUREMENT, ISBN 0-7923-8669-8 5 5 T.Moon and W. Stirling, Mathematical Methods and Algorithms for Signal Processing, ISBN 0-201-36186-8 6 6 A. J. van de Goor, TESTING SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORIES theory and practice, ISBN 90-80 4276-1-6 7 7 N.Ahmed, M. H. Tehranipour, M. Nourani, Low Power Pattern Generation for BIST Architecture, IEEE Circuits and Systems, 2004. ISCAS '04. Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium, 23-26 May 2004, Vol. 2, pages 689-92 8 8 X. Zhang and K. Roy, Peak Power reduction in low power BIST, Quality Electronic Design, 2000. ISQED 2000. Proceedings. 20-22 March 2000, page(s): 425 432
51

9 9 G. Marsaglia and A. Zaman, A New Class of Random Number Generators, The annals of Applied Probability, 1991, Vol 1, No. 3, 462 480 10 10 G. Marsaglia and L. Tsay, Matrices and the Structure of Random Number Sequences, Linear Algebra and its applications 67:147-156 (1985) 11 11 F. Nekoogar, From ASICs to SOCs, A practical Approach, ISBN 013-033857-5 12 12 Barabara Chappel, The fine art of IC design, IEEE Spectrum, July 1999, Volume: 36 , Issue: 7, page(s): 30 34, ISSN: 0018-9235 13 13 C. Wang and K. Roy, Maximum Power Estimation for CMOS circuits using deterministic and statistic approaches, 9th International conference on VLSI design, Jan 1996 14 14 E. Larson et, al, Efficient Test Solutions for Core-Based Designs, IEEE transactions on Computer aided design of integrated circuits and systems, vol. 23, May 2004 15 15 M.L. Mehta, Some remarks on Random Number Generators, Number theory and physics, 1990, Springer proceedings in Physics, Vol. 47, pages 253-259 16 16 F. Najm, A survey of power estimation techniques in VLSI circuits, IEEE Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, Dec. 1994, Volume: 2 , Issue: 4, page(s): 446 455

52

17 17 F. Najm, Estimating power dissipation in VLSI circuits, IEEE Circuits and Devices Magazine, July 1994, Volume: 10 , Issue: 4, page(s): 11 19 18 18 M. Schrader and R. McConnell, SOC Design and Test considerations, Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition, 2003, page(s): 202 207, ISSN: 1530-1591

53

APPENDIX A PATTERN GENERATION CONTROLLER

module top (Tte, Clk, resetn, out); input Tte; input Clk; input resetn; output [7:0] out; wire En1; wire En2; wire Sel1; wire Sel2; wire anor; wire [8:0] d; //reg [8:0] q; reg [8:5] q_upper; reg [3:0] q_lower; reg q_mid;

wire [7:0] out;

54

wire [7:0] qlfsr; wire [7:0] dlfsr; wire [7:0] rmuxout; wire r;

lfsr_fsm lfsr_fsm_a (.te(Tte), .clk(Clk), .en1(En1), .en2(En2), .sel1(Sel1), .sel2(Sel2)); always @(posedge En1 or negedge resetn) begin if (!resetn) q_upper[8:5] <= 4'b0100; else q_upper[8:5] <= d[8:5]; end always @(posedge En1 or negedge resetn) begin if (!resetn) q_mid <= 1'b1; else q_mid <= d[4] ;
55

end always @(posedge En2 or negedge resetn) begin if (!resetn) q_lower[3:0] <= 4'b1011; else q_lower[3:0] <= d[3:0] ; end assign d[8:0] = {q_upper[8]^q_lower[0], q_upper[8:5], q_mid, q_lower[3:1]}; //assign anor = ~(q_upper[8]|q_upper[7]|q_upper[6]|q_upper[5]|q_lower[3]|q_lower[2]|q_lo wer[1]); assign qlfsr = {q_upper[8:5],q_lower[3:0]}; assign dlfsr = {d[8:5],d[3:0]}; assign r = q_lower[0]; lfsr_andor_mux lfsr_andor_mux_a (.qlfsr(qlfsr), .dlfsr(dlfsr), .r(r), .rmuxout(rmuxout)); assign out[7:4] = Sel1 ? q_upper[8:5] : rmuxout[7:4];
56

assign out[3:0] = Sel2 ? q_lower[3:0] : rmuxout[3:0]; endmodule `timescale 1ns / 1ps //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Company: // Engineer: // Create Date: 17:22:25 08/30/05

// Module Name: lfsr_andor_mux // Revision 0.01 - File Created // Additional Comments: //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// module lfsr_andor_mux(qlfsr, dlfsr, r, rmuxout); input [7:0] qlfsr; input [7:0] dlfsr; input r;

output[7:0] rmuxout; wire [7:0] andout; wire [7:0] orout; assign andout[7:0] = qlfsr[7:0] & dlfsr[7:0];
57

assign orout[7:0] = qlfsr[7:0] | dlfsr[7:0]; assign rmuxout = r ? orout : andout; endmodule `timescale 1ns / 1ps //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Module Name: lfsr_fsm // Revision 0.01 - File Created //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// module lfsr_fsm(te, clk, en1, en2, sel1, sel2); input te; input clk; reg [2:0] count; output en1; output en2; output sel1; output sel2; reg en1; reg en2; reg sel1;
58

reg sel2; always @(posedge clk) begin if (te == 0) count <= 3'b001; else count <= count + 1; if (count >= 3'b100) count <= 3'b001; end always @(posedge clk) begin if (te==1) begin if (count==3'b001) begin en1 <= 1'b1; en2 <= 1'b0 ; sel1 <= 1'b1 ;
59

sel2 <= 1'b1 ; end else if(count==3'b010) begin en1 <= 1'b0 ; en2 <= 1'b0 ; sel1 <= 1'b1 ; sel2 <= 1'b0 ; end else if(count==3'b011) begin en1 <= 1'b0; en2 <= 1'b1 ; sel1 <= 1'b1; sel2 <= 1'b1 ; end else if(count==3'b100) begin en1 <= 1'b0 ;
60

en2 <= 1'b0 ; sel1 <= 1'b0; sel2 <= 1'b1 ; end else begin en1 <= 1'b1; en2 <= 1'b0 ; sel1 <= 1'b1 ; sel2 <= 1'b1 ; end end end endmodule

61

APPENDIX B VERILOG TEST BENCH

`timescale 1ns / 1ps //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Company: // Engineer: // // Create Date: 17:08:47 12/08/2005 // Design Name: main // Module Name: testdec08.v // Project Name: projecta // Target Device: // Tool versions: // Description: // // Verilog Test Fixture created by ISE for module: main // // Dependencies: // // Revision: // Revision 0.01 - File Created // Additional Comments: // //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// module testdec08_v; // Inputs reg Clk; reg Reset; // Outputs
62

wire PA; wire PB; wire PC; wire [3:0] Chan; // Instantiate the Unit Under Test (UUT) main uut ( .PA(PA), .PB(PB), .PC(PC), .Chan(Chan), .Clk(Clk), .Reset(Reset) ); initial begin // Initialize Inputs Clk = 0; Reset = 0; // Wait 100 ns for global reset to finish #100; // Add stimulus here // Create a 60ns/16.7MHZ clock and run it for a few us Reset = 1; end always #30 Clk = ~ Clk; //Need to set sim time in modelsim for the VCD file - try atleast 6us // for sufficient switching activity. For 6us VCD file size is 26KB

63

initial begin $dumpfile ("conv.vcd") ; $dumpvars(1, testdec08_v.uut); end endmodule module conv36(clk, resetn, lout); input clk; input resetn; output [35:0] lout; wire znor,znor1,znor2; wire [35:0] d; reg [35:0] q; always @(posedge clk or negedge resetn) begin if (!resetn) q <= 36'H000000000; else q <= d; end assign d[35:0] = {q[35]^q[24]^znor,q[35:1]}; assign lout[35:0] = q[35:0]; assign znor1 = ~|q[23:0]; assign znor2 = ~|q[34:24]; assign znor = znor1&znor2; endmodule

64

`timescale 1ns / 1ps //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Company: // Engineer: // // Create Date: 13:29:29 11/01/05 // Design Name: // Module Name: lfsr36top // Project Name: // Target Device: // Tool versions: // Description: // // Dependencies: // // Revision: // Revision 0.01 - File Created // Additional Comments: // //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// module modpatt_v; // Inputs reg Clk; reg Reset; reg TE; // Outputs wire PA; wire PB; wire PC; wire [3:0] Chan; // Instantiate the Unit Under Test (UUT) main uut (
65

.PA(PA), .PB(PB), .PC(PC), .Chan(Chan), .Clk(Clk), .Reset(Reset), .TE(TE) ); initial begin // Initialize Inputs Clk = 0; Reset = 0; TE = 0; // Wait 100 ns for global reset to finish #100; // Add stimulus here Reset = 1; TE = 1; end //Clock is 16.7MHZ (60ns), simulate in modelsim for 6us for the VCD file always #30 Clk = ~ Clk; initial begin $dumpfile ("mod.vcd"); $dumpvars(1, modpatt_v.uut);

66

end endmodule
`

67

APPENDIX C XILINX REPORTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) Synthesis Options Summary 2) HDL Compilation 3) HDL Analysis 4) HDL Synthesis 5) Advanced HDL Synthesis 5.1) HDL Synthesis Report 6) Low Level Synthesis 7) Final Report 7.1) Device utilization summary * Synthesis Options Summary *

---- Source Parameters Input File Name Input Format : "top.prj" : mixed

Ignore Synthesis Constraint File : NO

---- Target Parameters

68

Output File Name Output Format Target Device ---- Source Options Top Module Name Automatic FSM Extraction FSM Encoding Algorithm FSM Style RAM Extraction RAM Style ROM Extraction ROM Style Mux Extraction Mux Style Decoder Extraction Priority Encoder Extraction Shift Register Extraction Logical Shifter Extraction XOR Collapsing

: "top" : NGC : xc2s200-6-pq208

: top : YES : Auto : lut : Yes : Auto : Yes : Auto : YES : Auto : YES : YES : YES : YES : YES
69

Resource Sharing Multiplier Style

: YES : lut : No

Automatic Register Balancing

---- Target Options Add IO Buffers Global Maximum Fanout : YES : 100 :4

Add Generic Clock Buffer(BUFG) Register Duplication Equivalent register Removal Slice Packing : YES : YES

: YES

Pack IO Registers into IOBs

: auto

---- General Options Optimization Goal Optimization Effort Keep Hierarchy Global Optimization RTL Output : Speed :1 : NO : AllClockNets : Yes
70

Write Timing Constraints Hierarchy Separator Bus Delimiter Case Specifier Slice Utilization Ratio Slice Utilization Ratio Delta :/ : <>

: NO

: maintain : 100 :5

---- Other Options lso Read Cores cross_clock_analysis verilog2001 safe_implementation : top.lso : YES : NO : YES : No

Optimize Instantiated Primitives : NO tristate2logic use_clock_enable use_sync_set use_sync_reset enable_auto_floorplanning : Yes : Yes : Yes : Yes : No
71

====================================================== ===================

HDL Compilation

Compiling verilog file "lfsr_fsm.v" Module <lfsr_fsm> compiled Compiling verilog file "lfsr_andor_mux.v" Module <lfsr_andor_mux> compiled Compiling verilog file "top.v" Module <top> compiled No errors in compilation Analysis of file <"top.prj"> succeeded. * HDL Analysis *

Analyzing top module <top>. Module <top> is correct for synthesis.

Set property "resynthesize = true" for unit <top>. Analyzing module <lfsr_fsm>.
72

Module <lfsr_fsm> is correct for synthesis.

Analyzing module <lfsr_andor_mux>. Module <lfsr_andor_mux> is correct for synthesis.

HDL Synthesis

Synthesizing Unit <lfsr_andor_mux>. Related source file is "lfsr_andor_mux.v". Unit <lfsr_andor_mux> synthesized. Synthesizing Unit <lfsr_fsm>. Related source file is "lfsr_fsm.v". Found 1-bit register for signal <en1>. Found 1-bit register for signal <en2>. Found 1-bit register for signal <sel1>. Found 1-bit register for signal <sel2>. Found 3-bit comparator greatequal for signal <$n0000> created at line 54.
73

Found 3-bit up counter for signal <count>. Summary: inferred 1 Counter(s). inferred 4 D-type flip-flop(s). inferred 1 Comparator(s). Unit <lfsr_fsm> synthesized.

Synthesizing Unit <top>. Related source file is "top.v". WARNING:Xst:1780 - Signal <anor> is never used or assigned. Found 1-bit xor2 for signal <$n0000> created at line 92. Found 4-bit register for signal <q_lower>. Found 1-bit register for signal <q_mid>. Found 4-bit register for signal <q_upper>. Summary: inferred 1 D-type flip-flop(s). Unit <top> synthesized. * Advanced HDL Synthesis
74

================================================= Advanced RAM inference ... Advanced multiplier inference ... Advanced Registered AddSub inference ... Dynamic shift register inference ...

HDL Synthesis Report

Macro Statistics # Counters 3-bit up counter # Registers 1-bit register 4-bit register # Comparators 3-bit comparator greatequal # Xors 1-bit xor2 :1 :1
75

:1 :1 :7 :5 :2 :1 :1

Low Level Synthesis

Optimizing unit <top> ... Optimizing unit <lfsr_fsm> ... Optimizing unit <lfsr_andor_mux> ... Loading device for application Rf_Device from file 'v200.nph' in environment C:/Xilinx.

Mapping all equations... Building and optimizing final netlist ... Found area constraint ratio of 100 (+ 5) on block top, actual ratio is 0. * Final Results RTL Top Level Output File Name Top Level Output File Name Output Format Optimization Goal Keep Hierarchy : top.ngr : top Final Report *

: NGC : Speed : NO

76

Design Statistics # IOs Macro Statistics : # Registers # 1-bit register : 17 : 17 :1 : 11

# Comparators #

3-bit comparator greatequal : 1

Cell Usage : # BELS # # # # # # INV LUT2_L LUT3 LUT3_L LUT4 LUT4_L : 16 :1 :2 :1 :5 :6 :1 : 16 :4 :4 :5

77

# FlipFlops/Latches # # # FDC FDE FDP

# #

FDR FDS

:2 :1 :1 :1 : 10 :2 :8

# Clock Buffers # BUFGP

# IO Buffers # # IBUF OBUF

Device utilization summary: ---------------------------

Selected Device : 2s200pq208-6

Number of Slices: Number of Slice Flip Flops: Number of 4 input LUTs: Number of bonded IOBs: Number of GCLKs:

9 out of 2352

0% 0% 0% 7%

16 out of 4704 15 out of 4704 11 out of 144 1 out of

4 25%

78

Total memory usage is 86756 kilobytes Number of errors : 0 ( 0 filtered) Number of warnings : 1 ( 0 filtered) Number of infos : 1 ( 0 filtered)

Release 7.1.02i - XPower SoftwareVersion:H.40 Copyright (c) 1995-2005 Xilinx, Inc. All rights reserved. Design: main.ncd Preferences: main.pcf VCD File: C:\Xilinx\bin\Design with inputs from low power lfsr\mod.vcd Part: 2s200pq208-6 Data version: PRELIMINARY,v1.0,07-31-02 XPower and Datasheet may have some Quiescent Current differences. This is due to the fact that the quiescent numbers in XPower are based on measurements of real designs with active functional elements reflecting real world design scenarios.

Power summary: I(mA) P(mW) ---------------------------------------------------------------Total estimated power consumption: 10 --Vccint 2.50V: 1 2 Vcco33 3.30V: 2 8 --Clocks: 0 0 Inputs: 1 2 Logic: 0 1 Outputs:
79

Vcco33 0 1 Signals: 0 0 --Quiescent Vcco33 3.30V: 2 Startup Vccint 2.5V: 500 --Package power limits, ambient 25C: 250 LFM: 2620 500 LFM: 2970 750 LFM: 3209

7 1935

Thermal summary: ---------------------------------------------------------------Estimated junction temperature: 25C 250 LFM 25C 500 LFM 25C 750 LFM 25C Ambient temp: 25C Case temp: 25C Theta J-A range: 31 - 33C/W --Max ambient at junction max of 85C: 85C 250 LFM 85C 500 LFM 85C 750 LFM 85C Decoupling Network Summary: Cap Range (uF) # ---------------------------------------------------------------Capacitor Recommendations: Total for Vccint : 12 470.0 - 1000.0 : 1 0.470 - 2.200 : 1 0.0470 - 0.2200 : 2 0.0100 - 0.0470 : 3 0.0010 - 0.0047 : 5 --Invalid Program Mode
80

Total for

Vcco33 : 8 470.0 - 1000.0 : 1 0.0470 - 0.2200 : 1 0.0100 - 0.0470 : 2 0.0010 - 0.0047 : 4 Power details: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Inputs: Loads Loading(fF) C(pF) F(MHz) I(mA) P(mW) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Clk_BUFGP/IBUFG 16000 16.7 0.7 1.7 Reset_IBUF 2970 0.1 0.0 0.0 TE_IBUF 2970 0.1 0.0 0.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Outputs:1 Loads Loading(fF) C(pF) F(MHz) I(mA) P(mW) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Vcco33 PC_OBUF 35000 13 0.7 0.1 0.3 Chan_0_OBUF 35000 13 0.3 0.0 0.1 Chan_2_OBUF 35000 13 0.3 0.0 0.1 PB_OBUF 35000 13 0.3 0.0 0.1 Chan_1_OBUF 35000 13 0.2 0.0 0.1 Chan_3_OBUF 35000 13 0.1 0.0 0.0 PA_OBUF 35000 13 0.1 0.0 0.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Logic: Loads Loading(fF) C(pF) F(MHz) I(mA) P(mW) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------sr2/_n00631 2400 0.9 0.0 0.0 sr2/_n00661 2400 0.9 0.0 0.0 M3/PC384_SW1_SW0 2400 0.8 0.0 0.0 M3/PC622_SW0 2400 0.8 0.0 0.0 sr2/_n00841 2400 0.8 0.0 0.0 sr2/_n00871 2400 0.8 0.0 0.0 sr2/_n00901 2400 0.8 0.0 0.0 M3/PC104 2400 0.7 0.0 0.0 M3/PC252_SW0 2400 0.7 0.0 0.0 M3/PC252_SW1 2400 0.7 0.0 0.0
81

M3/PC634 sr2/_n00691 sr2/_n00721 sr2/_n00751 sr2/_n00781 sr2/_n00811 sr2/_n00931 sr2/_n00961 sr2/_n00991 M4/I<7>1 M4/I<6>1 M4/I<5>1 M4/I<0>1 M4/I<0>2 M4/I<4>1 M4/I<3>1 M4/I<3>2 M4/I<2>1 M4/I<2>2 M3/PC104_SW1 M4/I<1>1 M4/I<1>2 M2/PB88 M2/PB92 M2/PB99 sr2/_n00071 sr2/_n00101 sr2/_n00131 sr2/_n01021 sr2/_n01051 sr2/_n01081 sr2/_n01111 M4/I<6>2 M4/I<8>2 sr2/_n00161 sr2/_n00191 sr2/_n00221

2400 0.7 0.0 0.0 2400 0.7 0.0 0.0 2400 0.7 0.0 0.0 2400 0.7 0.0 0.0 2400 0.7 0.0 0.0 2400 0.7 0.0 0.0 2400 0.7 0.0 0.0 2400 0.7 0.0 0.0 2400 0.7 0.0 0.0 2400 0.7 0.0 0.0 2400 0.6 0.0 0.0 2400 0.6 0.0 0.0 2400 0.6 0.0 0.0 2400 0.6 0.0 0.0 2400 0.6 0.0 0.0 2400 0.5 0.0 0.0 2400 0.5 0.0 0.0 2400 0.5 0.0 0.0 2400 0.5 0.0 0.0 2400 0.5 0.0 0.0 2400 0.5 0.0 0.0 2400 0.5 0.0 0.0 2400 0.4 0.0 0.0 2400 0.4 0.0 0.0 2400 0.4 0.0 0.0 2400 0.4 0.0 0.0 2400 0.4 0.0 0.0 2400 0.4 0.0 0.0 2400 0.4 0.0 0.0 2400 0.4 0.0 0.0 2400 0.4 0.0 0.0 2400 0.4 0.0 0.0 2400 0.3 0.0 0.0 2400 0.3 0.0 0.0 2400 0.3 0.0 0.0 2400 0.3 0.0 0.0 2400 0.3 0.0 0.0
82

M4/I<8>1 M1/PA66 M1/Mxor_X1_Result<6>1 M1/Mxor_X1_Result<7>1 M2/PB122 M4/I<4>2 M4/I<5>2 M5/_n0008 M5/_n0008_SW0 M5/_n0009_SW0 M5/_n00101 M3/PC622 M2/PB122_SW0 M3/PC454 M3/PC384 M3/PC384_SW1 M1/PA66_SW0 M1/Mxor_X1_Result<4>1 M1/Mxor_X1_Result<5>1 M4/I<7>2 M5/_n0009 sr2/_n00251 sr2/_n00601 M3/PC591_SW0 M1/PA57 M2/PB67 M2/PB67_SW0 M2/PB34 M1/PA21 M2/PB30 M1/Mxor_X1_Result<0>1 M1/Mxor_X1_Result<1>1 M1/Mxor_X1_Result<2>1 M1/PA81 M3/PC252 M5/_n001138 sr2/_n00281

2400 2400

0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 2400 0.3 0.0 2400 0.3 0.0 2400 0.3 0.0 0.0 2400 0.3 0.0 0.0 2400 0.3 0.0 0.0 2400 0.3 0.0 0.0 2400 0.3 0.0 0.0 2400 0.3 0.0 0.0 2400 0.3 0.0 0.0 2400 0.2 0.0 0.0 2400 0.2 0.0 0.0 2400 0.2 0.0 0.0 2400 0.2 0.0 0.0 2400 0.2 0.0 0.0 2400 0.2 0.0 0.0 2400 0.2 0.0 2400 0.2 0.0 2400 0.2 0.0 0.0 2400 0.2 0.0 0.0 2400 0.2 0.0 0.0 2400 0.2 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0
83

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

sr2/_n00311 sr2/_n00341 sr2/_n00371 sr2/_n00401 sr2/_n00431 sr2/_n00461 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/count__n0001<0>1 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/count__n0001<1>1 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/count__n0001<2>1 M1/PA10 M3/PC591_SW1 M3/PC606 M3/PC268_SW0 M2/PB11 M3/PC591 M3/PC268 Clk_BUFGP/BUFG.CE_POWER M5/_n001112 sr2/Mxor__n0000_Result1 sr2/_n00491 sr2/_n00521 sr2/_n00551 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/_n00011 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/_n00021 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/_n00031 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/_n00041 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/count_0 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/count_1 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/count_2 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/en1 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/en2 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/sel1 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/sel2 sr2/q_lower_0 sr2/q_lower_1 sr2/q_lower_10 sr2/q_lower_11

0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.1 0.0 0.0 2400 0.0 0.0 0.0 2400 0.0 0.0 0.0 2400 0.0 0.0 0.0 2400 0.0 0.0 0.0 2400 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2400 0.0 0.0 0.0 2400 0.0 0.0 0.0 2400 0.0 0.0 0.0 2400 0.0 0.0 0.0 2400 0.0 0.0 0.0 2400 0.0 0.0 0.0 2400 0.0 0.0 0.0 2400 0.0 0.0 0.0 2400 0.0 0.0 0.0 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 275 0.0 0.0 0.0
84

2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400

sr2/q_lower_12 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower_13 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower_14 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower_15 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower_16 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower_17 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower_2 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower_3 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower_4 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower_5 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower_6 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower_7 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower_8 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower_9 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_mid 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_0 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_1 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_10 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_11 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_12 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_13 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_14 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_15 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_16 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_16.BY0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_17 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_2 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_3 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_4 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_5 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_6 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_7 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_8 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_9 275 0.0 0.0 0.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Signals: Loads Loading(fF) C(pF) F(MHz) I(mA) P(mW) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------85

PC_OBUF PB_OBUF Reset_IBUF srBus<24> srBus<22> srBus<20> PA_OBUF srBus<34> srBus<12> srBus<14> srBus<17> srBus<13> srBus<16> srBus<33> srBus<30> srBus<18> srBus<25> Chan_0_OBUF N573 srBus<15> Chan_1_OBUF I<8> I<4> srBus<19> Chan_2_OBUF I<7> X1<4> I<5> I<6> srBus<5> srBus<21> srBus<11> X1<6> srBus<10> X1<0> srBus<28> srBus<4>

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0

4 8 14 1 1 1 8 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
86

0.7 0.0 ~0.0 0.3 0.0 ~0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 ~0.0 0.7 0.0 ~0.0 0.4 0.0 ~0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 ~0.0 0.3 0.0 ~0.0 0.3 0.0 ~0.0 0.4 0.0 ~0.0 0.3 0.0 ~0.0 0.4 0.0 ~0.0 0.9 0.0 ~0.0 0.7 0.0 ~0.0 0.4 0.0 ~0.0 0.8 0.0 ~0.0 1 0.3 0.0 ~0.0 0.8 0.0 ~0.0 0.4 0.0 ~0.0 1 0.2 0.0 ~0.0 0.3 0.0 ~0.0 0.3 0.0 ~0.0 0.4 0.0 ~0.0 1 0.3 0.0 ~0.0 0.2 0.0 ~0.0 0.2 0.0 ~0.0 0.3 0.0 ~0.0 0.3 0.0 ~0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 ~0.0 0.2 0.0 ~0.0 0.3 0.0 ~0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 ~0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

M4/N4 srBus<7> srBus<6> srBus<9> X1<2> srBus<8> CHOICE932 CHOICE788 Chan_3_OBUF X1<7> X1<1> N555 CHOICE783 X1<5> srBus<35> CHOICE801 N559 CHOICE817 CHOICE818 N569 CHOICE980 CHOICE810 N567 CHOICE902 CHOICE769 CHOICE803 CHOICE826 CHOICE835 CHOICE836 CHOICE837 CHOICE869 CHOICE901 CHOICE945 CHOICE979 CHOICE981 I<0> I<1>

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 1 1 1

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.5 0.0 ~0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 0.2 0.0 ~0.0 1 0.1 0.0 ~0.0 1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 ~0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 ~0.0 1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 ~0.0 0.2 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.1 0.0 ~0.0 0.1 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 0.0 ~0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.3 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.1 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.2 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.2 0.0 ~0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

87

I<2> 0 I<3> 0 M4/N0 0 M4/N10 0 M4/N12 0 M4/N14 0 M4/N16 0 M4/N2 0 M4/N6 0 M4/N8 0 N11 0 N547 0 N549 0 N557 0 N561 0 N563 0 N565 0 N571 0 N9 0 sr2/d<35> 0 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/count<0> sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/count<1> sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/count<2> sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/en1 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/en2 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/sel1 sr2/lfsr_fsm_a/sel2 sr2/q_lower<0> sr2/q_lower<10> sr2/q_lower<11> sr2/q_lower<12> sr2/q_lower<13> sr2/q_lower<14> sr2/q_lower<15> sr2/q_lower<16> sr2/q_lower<17> sr2/q_lower<1>

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.3 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.5 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.6 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.7 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.6 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.6 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.5 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.6 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.2 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.5 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.2 0.0 ~0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0
88

1 1

sr2/q_lower<2> 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower<3> 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower<4> 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower<5> 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower<6> 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower<7> 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower<8> 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_lower<9> 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_mid 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_1 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_10 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_11 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_12 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_13 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_14 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_15 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_16 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_17 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_2 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_3 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_4 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_5 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_6 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_7 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_8 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 sr2/q_upper_9 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 srBus<1> 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 srBus<23> 0 0 0.7 0.0 ~0.0 srBus<26> 0 0 0.8 0.0 ~0.0 srBus<27> 0 0 0.8 0.0 ~0.0 srBus<29> 0 0 0.7 0.0 ~0.0 srBus<2> 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 srBus<31> 0 0 0.7 0.0 ~0.0 srBus<32> 0 0 0.7 0.0 ~0.0 srBus<3> 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------89

Clocks:2 Loads Loading(fF) C(pF) F(MHz) I(mA) P(mW) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------TE_IBUF TE_IBUF 0 2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Clk_BUFGP/IBUFG Logic: Clk_BUFGP/BUFG 80 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nets: Clk_BUFGP 0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clk_BUFGP/IBUFG 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Power improvement guide: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------For further suggestions on power improvements see application note no. 421 Analysis completed: Fri Dec 09 15:54:22 2005

90

APPENDIX D C432 VERILOG

module TopLevel432b (E, A, B, C, PA, PB, PC, Chan); input[8:0] E, A, B, C; output PA, PB, PC;

output[3:0] Chan; wire[8:0] X1, X2, I; PriorityA M1(E, A, PA, X1); PriorityB M2(E, X1, B, PB, X2); PriorityC M3(E, X1, X2, C, PC); EncodeChan M4(E, A, B, C, PA, PB, PC, I); DecodeChan M5(I, Chan); endmodule /* TopLevel432b */ module PriorityA(E, A, PA, X1); input[8:0] E, A; output PA;

output[8:0] X1; wire [8:0] Ab, EAb;

91

assign Ab = ~A; assign EAb = ~(Ab & E); assign PA = ~&EAb; assign X1 = EAb ^ {9{PA}}; endmodule /* PriorityA */ module PriorityB(E, X1, B, PB, X2); input[8:0] E, X1, B; output PB;

output[8:0] X2; wire [8:0] Eb, EbB, XEB; assign Eb = ~E; assign EbB = ~(Eb | B); assign XEB = ~(X1 & EbB); assign PB = ~&XEB; assign X2 = XEB ^ {9{PB}}; endmodule /* PriorityB */ module PriorityC(E, X1, X2, C, PC); input[8:0] E, X1, X2, C; output PC;
92

wire [8:0] Eb, EbC, XEC;

assign Eb = ~E; assign EbC = ~(Eb | C); assign XEC = ~(X1 & X2 & EbC); assign PC = ~&XEC; endmodule /*PriorityC */ module EncodeChan(E, A, B, C, PA, PB, PC, I); input[8:0] E, A, B, C; input PA, PB, PC; output[8:0] I; wire [8:0] APA, BPB, CPC; assign APA = ~(A & {9{PA}}); assign BPB = ~(B & {9{PB}}); assign CPC = ~(C & {9{PC}}); assign I = ~(E & APA & BPB & CPC); endmodule /* EncodeChan */ module DecodeChan(I, Chan); input[8:0] I;
93

output[3:0] Chan; wire Iand, I8b, I1b, I2b, I3b, I5b, I56, I245, I3456, I1256;

assign I8b = ~I[8]; assign Iand = &I[7:0]; assign Chan[3] = ~(I8b | Iand); assign I1b = ~I[1]; assign I2b = ~I[2]; assign I3b = ~I[3]; assign I5b = ~I[5]; assign I56 = ~(I5b & I[6]); assign I245 = ~(I2b & I[4] & I[5]); assign I3456 = ~(I3b & I[4] & I[5] & I[6]); assign I1256 = ~(I1b & I[2] & I[5] & I[6]); assign Chan[2] = ~(I[4] & I[6] & I[7] & I56); assign Chan[1] = ~(I[6] & I[7] & I245 & I3456); assign Chan[0] = ~(I[7] & I56 & I1256 & I3456);
endmodule /* DecodeChan */

94

PERMISSION TO COPY

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a masters degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my further written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.

Agree (Permission is granted.)

________Aftab Farooqi______________________________ Student Signature

__04-29-06_______ Date

Disagree (Permission is not granted.)

_______________________________________________ Student Signature

_________________ Date