For verification, it was an eventful week. DVCON 2013 kept everyone busy with record attendance at the sessions and by following the tweets & blogs that resulted from them. The major highlight of this year’s conference was release of the latest update to System Verilog standard, IEEE 1800-2012 and free PDF copies made available, courtesy - Accellera.
With verification constantly marching to increase its claim on ASIC design schedule while retaining its position as a major factor for silicon re-spins, verification planning was a hot topic of discussion at DVCON. Some of the interesting points that came out of a panel discussion on verification planning were –
- Verification plan is not just a wish list. You have to define how you’re going to get there.
- Problem is not over-planning, but over-verifying designs because there has not been enough planning.
- Biggest objection we hear is we don’t have time to capture a verification plan. But you'll lose more time if you don't.
- What’s useful in verification planning is “ruthless prioritization.” You can never get it all done.
- My biggest challenge is getting marketing input into my verification plan.
- Failure to plan means planning to fail.
Last week, I guest blogged on a similar topic based on a recent survey conducted by Catherine & Neil. Clearly, the issue of poor planning gets highlighted in all areas of product development.
Traditionally, the verification plans were just a list of features to be verified, addressing ‘what to verify’. With the emergence of CRV, the plans started including the second aspect i.e. ‘how to verify’. Further, to bring focus to this never ending verification problem, CDV was adopted. The verification plans now started including target numbers in terms of coverage (code, functional and assertions) to define ‘when are we done’. With a given set of resources, when the ASIC design schedule is imposed on the verification plan, meeting the goals is a challenge. There arises a need to prioritize verification in terms of the features. Remember, Any code that is not verified will not work!
To enable this “ruthless prioritization”, collaboration is required among marketing, software and hardware groups to align to the design objectives. Everyone needs to understand the potential end applications and preferential ways in the design to achieve them. In case of IPs, this could mean that the initial releases target a limited set of applications based on the customers on board. Once that is achieved, ‘over-verifying’ can take over to further close on the grey areas. In case of SoC, it is a tough call. While design cost continues to increase with diminishing dimensions, the break even may not happen with limited applications (as a result of limited verification) of the SoC. The problem gets aggravated further with the specifications changing on the fly. A platform based approach could be a potential solution where variants of SoC are churned out frequently, but again defining the platform and prioritizing the features boils down to the same problem. A tough nut to crack!
The whole point of over-verifying comes to the fore front because verification is the long pole in the schedule. What if the designs could be ‘over verified’ within the timelines? What does it take to achieve that? Are tools like intelligent test benches, formal verification, hardware acceleration or cloud computing a solution? If yes, what is the associated cost and how does it affect?
There is no easy answer to any of these questions. In words of Albert Einstein, “The world we have created is a product of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.”
Probably when an answer comes out, we will be on the road of commoditizing the hardware. Till then 'over-verification' is what we have to live with!