Page 91 - System on Package_ Miniaturization of the Entire System
P. 91

Intr oduction to System-on-Chip (SOC)     67


                    additional parasitics. This is beginning to be called “yield-driven-layout” in the industry
                    today. Another major cause of yield concern on the chip are the “via” structures added
                    to connect adjacent metal interconnects. Thermally induced stress can impact both the
                    copper interconnects and the low-K materials used in today’s process technology given
                    that the dielectric has a large thermal expansion coefficient and poor adhesion. This can
                    cause voids below the via structures and result in poor reliability of the circuit. Layout
                    designers need to take care of this yield issue during physical design. This is typically
                    done by optimizing the interconnect routing to minimize vias as much as possible by
                    ensuring straighter routes, and where vias are added, to insert redundant vias in the
                    layout so as to improve the reliability of the design.
                       In contrast to the exciting growth opportunities and enablers toward integrating
                    and building complex SOC devices with advanced process technology, and the several
                    huge challenges outlined above, the availability of design engineering talent to support
                    the creation of such complex SOCs has not increased. This has resulted in a huge design
                    productivity gap that needs to be addressed.
                       SOC design methodology has evolved over the last three decades by trying to keep
                    pace with these advances and the complexity in process technology at submicron nodes.
                    However, the design productivity gap continues to increase, as indicated in Figure 2.19,
                    given that this pace is found not to be sufficient to cope with the complexity growth.
                    Addressing SOC Design Create Complexity
                    One of the significant enablers to cope with the various SOC design complexities that were
                    described in the previous sections is design abstraction. Over the last two decades, design
                    engineers have moved up one abstraction layer to another in a bid to comprehend the
                    ever-increasing integration of complex components and functionality on a single chip.
                       As described in Figure 2.20, each abstraction level has a critical influence on the
                    final SOC behavior, and while clearly the implementation effort and complexity is
                    reduced at higher levels of design abstractions, it is very important to ensure the
                    functional correctness of each level before the next level up can be created and verified.
                    This is one of the fundamental aspects of how SOC design complexity is handled via
                    hierarchical design approaches that will be described later.

                         10,000                                                   100,000
                                        Logic tr./chip
                          1,000         Tr./staff month                           10,000
                                                                                  1,000
                           100
                      Complexity logic transistor per chip(M)  10 1  x  x  complexity growth rate  100  Productivity  (K) trans./staff-Mo.
                                                               58%/Yr. compounded
                                                                                  10

                            0.1
                                                            21%/Yr. compounded
                           0.01         x x  x  x x  x     productivity growth rate  1 0.1

                          0.001                                                   0.01
                                 1981  1983  1985  1987  1989  1991  1993  1995  1997  1999  2001  2003  2005  2007  2009


                    FIGURE 2.19  Design productivity gap.
   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96