This invention relates to the physical design process of designing VLSI semiconductor chips, and particularly is directed at the alleviation of wiring congestion.
Trademarks: IBM® is a registered trademark of International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk, N.Y. U.S.A. S/390, z900 and z990 and other product names may be registered trademarks or product names of International Business Machines Corporation or other companies.
Wiring congestion in an area of a semiconductor chip can have an adverse impact on timing due to longer than minimum (non-steiner) wire lengths causing larger than necessary wire and circuit delays. Ideally, the placement of an individual circuit should be somewhere between the circuit(s) that drives it and the circuit(s) that it drives. This eliminates the needless consumption of wiring tracks due to cross wiring along the path. Typically, automated placement programs are driven by metrics that result in this condition. However, subsequent steps in the physical design process, such as replication of clock network circuits followed by placement legalization, can lead to situations where circuits are moved outside of their area of connectivity. Steps to replace a particular region to alleviate wiring congestion may negate prior logical or physical design modifications made to improve timing. U.S. Pat. No. 5,859,781 for a “Method and Apparatus For Computing Minimum Wirelength Position (MWP) For Cell in Cell Placement for Integrated Circuit Chip”, describes a method for optimizing the placement of circuits in order to minimize total wire length by employing bounding boxes of connectivity for each net connected to a circuit. Although this is adequate from a pure wirability viewpoint, one drawback is that not all net segments have an equal relationship to timing. Particularly in a design that has gone through some level of logic optimization based on physical design parameters, such as those described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,192,508, “Method For Logic Optimization For Improved Timing and Congestion During Placement In Integrated Circuit Design”, longer length nets have probably already had the circuit driving them bumped up in strength while shorter lengths potentially have smaller/weaker circuits driving them. In this case, decreasing the total net length of a set of nets at the expense of increasing certain pin to pin segments could have an adverse impact on timing. This is illustrated by the two examples shown in
The preferred embodiment of the invention relates to a method for identifying and quantifying the situation where a circuit placement leads to unnecessary wire length which can be reduced without increasing the length of any pin to pin connections of that circuit, thus freeing up wiring tracks with no impact to timing.
The invention provides a method for identifying circuits in a region of wiring congestion whose placement can be modified in order to reduce net length on each of their net connections without increasing the length of any particular pin to pin segment. The method includes determining the placement locations of all the circuits connected to a particular circuit, excluding the coordinates of that circuit itself. A rectangle is then defined by the X min, Y min, X max, and Y max of these placement coordinates, and the placement of the circuit in question is checked to see if it falls within that rectangle. If not, the rectilinear distance from the circuit to the rectangle is calculated along with the closest placement location along the border of the rectangle. By replacing the circuit along the rectangle border at the location closest to the original circuit position, it is assured that no pin to pin segment will see an increase in length. The circuit instance name is reported along with the distance to the rectangle and recommended placement location. The chip designer can then use this information to decide which circuits to move and quickly replace them with minimal disruption to other circuit placements and no adverse impact on timing. In comparison to a placement or optimization run such as those previously described on the whole chip or a portion of the chip, there is less design change. This is a particularly advantageous in the latter stages of the design cycle, where typically manual logic and physical modifications have already been and are currently being implemented to compensate for deficiencies in the automated processes described and it is desired to minimize the impact to the design parameters those modifications were based on.
These and other improvements are set forth in the following detailed description. For a better understanding of the invention with advantages and features, refer to the description and to the drawings.
Our detailed description explains the preferred embodiments of our invention, together with advantages and features, by way of example with reference to the drawings.
At step 703, a program is used to correlate each circuit and its associated nets from the circuit info file with the circuits that connect with those nets in the net info file. At this point, we now have all the circuits which connect to the originally identified circuits (the result of step 700) along with their placement locations. For the example in
At step 704, each originally identified circuit is then checked to determine if its placement falls within its associated rectangle of connectivity. If it does not, at step 705 the rectilinear distance from the circuit to the rectangle is calculated. Referring to
The circuit instances lying outside their rectangle of connectivity are reported at step 707 along with their current placement, distance from the rectangle, and recommended placement location. At step 708, this information is used at the chip designer's discretion to determine the circuit placement modifications which will be implemented and aid in the replacing of the selected circuits.
By using this process to identify and replace circuits, not only are the path delays encompassing the circuits reduced but wiring tracks are freed up to aid in alleviating wiring congestion and increase the probability of non-related nets routing in with minumum wire length.
While the preferred embodiment to the invention has been described, it will be understood that those skilled in the art, both now and in the future, may make various improvements and enhancements which fall within the scope of the claims which follow. These claims should be construed to maintain the proper protection for the invention first described.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5587923 | Wang | Dec 1996 | A |
5673201 | Malm et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5784289 | Wang | Jul 1998 | A |
5859781 | D'Haeseleer et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5875117 | Jones et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5903461 | Rostoker et al. | May 1999 | A |
5930499 | Chen et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5984510 | Guruswamy et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6123736 | Pavisic et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6292929 | Scepanovic et al. | Sep 2001 | B2 |
6301693 | Naylor et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6353918 | Carothers et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6415427 | Nitta et al. | Jul 2002 | B2 |
6493658 | Koford et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6557145 | Boyle et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6609243 | Evans et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6637016 | Gasanov et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6671859 | Naylor et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6766500 | Donelly et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6832362 | Nuber | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6904585 | Brittain et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6912704 | Teig | Jun 2005 | B1 |
20010018759 | Andreev et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20030018947 | Tieg et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030229878 | Nuber | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040040007 | Harn | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040078770 | Miller et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
03074873 | Mar 1991 | JP |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20040199883 A1 | Oct 2004 | US |