The above check principles are fundamental and can't be tool dependent. In FPGAs we avoid gating clocks otherwise we also get hold failure and data path has to be delayed to offset the hold slack.Yes we agree on what are setup and hold checks.
I forgot to mention that the question is for an ASIC not for a FPGA.
As explained, the hold timing reports from PrimeTime is pessimistic and leads to insertion of unnecessary hold buffers in the datapath (which leads to performance loss and power consumption increase).
I'd like to understand if this pessimistic approach is the same for other ASIC STA tools or if they use a more realistic approach (for example Cadence Tempus).
Tempus. I haven't checked your scenario exactly, but I have a recollection of it working that way.Thanks for your answer ThisIsNotSam.
You are totally right, there are different possibilities to workaround this problem.
On my side the workaround I use is to apply the command "set_clock_exclusivity -type mux -output <mux_instance_name/output_pin>. This works fine.
I had a discussion with Synopsys R&D on this topic. They are OK with my remark (physically speaking, 1 same clock edge can't go through the 2 inputs of the mux at the same time and so the report is unrealistically pessimistic).
I just want to know if the other STA tools behave the same for such clock scheme (for example Cadence Tempus).
Do you use Tempus or an STA engine from another EDA vendor?
Tempus. I haven't checked your scenario exactly, but I have a recollection of it working that way.
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?