Do I need to re-entry the schematic when I work on a new technology?

[melkord]

is there any efficient way to simulate the same circuit we have designed before but now using a different technology?

 

[deep_sea]

is there any efficient way to simulate the same circuit we have designed before but now using a different technology?

No way. The only way to "copy" the circuit, is to simulate and see DC operating point and adjust your new circuit with the same gm/ID. Use appropriate L and adjust current base don budget and choose W based on gm/ID.

 

[AMS012]

is there any efficient way to simulate the same circuit we have designed before but now using a different technology?

Yes, just change the technology library in model library definition. Schematic porting from one technology to another technology is very straight forward, and should not take any time. However, the layout cannot be ported that easily.

 

[melkord]

Yes, just change the technology library in model library definition. Schematic porting from one technology to another technology is very straight forward, and should not take any time. However, the layout cannot be ported that easily.

I see, just to make sure.
Do you mean editing the object properties (shortcut 'Q')? see picture below.
By doing it this way, I need to change it one by one, i.e., if there are 5 mosfets in the schematic, I need to point each one of them to the current tech.

 

[deep_sea]

I think I have answered another question regarding performance of the circuit not porting it out. Sorry for that.

 

[dick_freebird]

There's probably layers of stuff that need changed.
The symbol libraries that are process-specific, will
have associated netlisting procedures per device
that will refer to corresponding models. Those
names and arguments will need to be mapped or
replaced (the PDK models set's subcircuit layer may
be the efficient place to do this). SPICE "not found"
model errors will show you what's "got a gap", you
can expect a few passes around that loop getting
the schematic, symbol, netlist line, model libs and
model statement detail all self-consistent.

When you get all that straight then you can observe
any effects of process and gemoetry (if the model
fit of one, is appropriate to the geometries of the
other).

 

[martinnl]

Since you use Virtuoso you can check a porting script done by Andrew Beckett.

You have to define the device mapping and also be careful about callbacks.

But bottom line is that it is a very crude porting, you can't really draw any conclusions about the process performance or be sure that the circuit will work. The best outcome would be that you get a good starting point.

 

[melkord]

Yes, just change the technology library in model library definition. Schematic porting from one technology to another technology is very straight forward, and should not take any time. However, the layout cannot be ported that easily.

There's probably layers of stuff that need changed.
The symbol libraries that are process-specific, will
have associated netlisting procedures per device
that will refer to corresponding models. Those
names and arguments will need to be mapped or
replaced (the PDK models set's subcircuit layer may
be the efficient place to do this). SPICE "not found"
model errors will show you what's "got a gap", you
can expect a few passes around that loop getting
the schematic, symbol, netlist line, model libs and
model statement detail all self-consistent.

When you get all that straight then you can observe
any effects of process and gemoetry (if the model
fit of one, is appropriate to the geometries of the
other).

Since you use Virtuoso you can check a porting script done by Andrew Beckett.

You have to define the device mapping and also be careful about callbacks.

But bottom line is that it is a very crude porting, you can't really draw any conclusions about the process performance or be sure that the circuit will work. The best outcome would be that you get a good starting point.

Thanks for your replies.
I tried it by changing it one by one.
It took several passes to clean up the error.
It seems that it is very prone to mistakes.

 

[Dominik Przyborowski]

You can use find/replace function in schematic editor and replace all devices in given hierarchy.

There is also an option in ADE to simulate vs various technologies but I know nothing more about it.