omara007
Advanced Member level 4
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,237
- Helped
- 50
- Reputation
- 102
- Reaction score
- 16
- Trophy points
- 1,318
- Location
- Cairo/Egypt
- Activity points
- 9,716
salma ali bakr said:yah yah...i meant STA
sorry!
so one should avoid writing delay clauses....and not use wire-load models since they're inaccurate (except for small designs)...
so how should this be done then..???!!!
about formal verification: do you mean it would be better to replace all functional verification (simulations, STA, etc..)...by formal ways (equivalence checking, model checking, property monitors...etc) ?!
omara007 said:B.T.W There is also a different approach .. which is to go for formal verification instead of functional verification .. this hugely saves time ..
salma ali bakr said:ok, so we need the advice of someone from backend still
but how about having different clocks, shouldn't this work fine?!
omara007 said:B.T.W There is also a different approach .. which is to go for formal verification instead of functional verification .. this hugely saves time ..
i just want to know where this fits in, that's all.. i know about formal verification and its different approaches, but i need some elaboration about this sentence
salma ali bakr said:aha...so the mentioning of the formal verification part was for the netlist...and that the dynamic verification can be formal instead (equivalence checking)
...about the different clocks, i was just saying that maybe this can be a solution..
to have different clocks in the design (one for the main blocks and one for the delay part...) by adding clock dividers for instance...!
salma ali bakr said:aha...so the mentioning of the formal verification part was for the netlist...and that the dynamic verification can be formal instead (equivalence checking)
...about the different clocks, i was just saying that maybe this can be a solution..
to have different clocks in the design (one for the main blocks and one for the delay part...) by adding clock dividers for instance...!
omara007 said:unless you have a complete circuit that generates a slower clock .. and with some XORing you can generate a third clock with T/4 phase shift from the original one ..
omara007 said:The buffer insertion was an acceptable solution given it's not coded in the front-end .. I believe we made this point clear enough .. unless a backend guy has another extra input to this issue ..
omara007 said:I believe we made this point clear enough
salma ali bakr said:berra7a 3aleina shwayya ya mohammad...e7na benet3alem lessa
wa7da wa7da
omara007 said:salma ali bakr said:berra7a 3aleina shwayya ya mohammad...e7na benet3alem lessa
wa7da wa7da
For that reason I'm looping
roni9 said:FIR all pass filter
safwatonline said:i didn't try it before, but the idea is to create a filter that have a flat amplitude response and a 90degree phase shift at the desired frequency, this can be analog or digital design as far as i know this is used in quadrature modulators, try searching for all pass filters
sorry, i was using a friends account "roni9"
master_picengineer said:Ok, i understand that we agreed that the solution is to indtroduce the delay at physical level using buffers insertion with the appropriate transistor sizing.
Is that the only one solution ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?