rf-design
Senior Member
![* *](https://designers-guide.org/forum/Templates/Forum/default/stargold.gif) ![* *](https://designers-guide.org/forum/Templates/Forum/default/stargold.gif) ![* *](https://designers-guide.org/forum/Templates/Forum/default/stargold.gif)
Offline
![](http://www.rf-design.de/logo/rfdesign_logo_32mm.gif)
Reiner Franke
Posts: 165
Germany
|
Achim,
it is natural that you have to follow the more complex nature of today mixed/rf circuits. There is also more programability built into systems. Partly because that is also built in hardware but more because you want to have a higher degree of flexibility to explore alternatives. Executeable languages are a good extension to structural descriptions. I think they complement each other. If your origin is analog and spice you have a good ground which most missing. What is missing is a better support of the EDA world for integrated verification.
Today(!) I am specifying analog/mixed systems on Matlab/Simulink because it is more efficient. For our development Matlab is also used as base for digital as well as analog developments. For me Mathworks is the winner in the analog world. The huge libraries, the scripting enviroment, good documentation,... are the reasons to develop higher level circuit specification. Verification on the next level is still spice but mixed with VHDL-AMS, Verilog.
An integrated verification flow must support automatic or executeable spice level parameters. The methology of the 80's, schematic->netlist->spice->waveform, stick the verification engineer to cockpit drivers. If a circuit runs at 3 temperatures, 3 basic process corners, 100's analog process corners, 10's circuit configuration states, 10's of resuse embeddings, ..., there is no way to proceed with the cockpit procedure. Waveform verification is not automatic!. You can automate up to the point where script based verification could generate weeks of waveform videos. Who verify the videos?
What I think in the near time the solution is to use the same Matlab enviroment for higher level specificaction/design also to drive automatic circuit level verification. That is exact the point where EDA is missing. They need for this was oberserved for about 5 years now. But the was no sign from EDA. All effort is concentrated to some spot issues like simulation result based netlist reduction. This example also shows that if an specification enviroment would exist the extractor does not need to extract aF/mOhm on static or small current lines. So the netlist reduction is good example what going wrong. If the netlist reduction is not ciruit result driven it has the same dilemma.
Ten years ago every one told you the world is digital or going to be. You had to think that you are one of the last dino's waiting for the next asteroid. Now analog productivity is in crisis. For what you need analog? The world is digital. There is something that got wrong.
Reiner
|