Cadence Virtuoso Post-layout simulation using Calibre

[hellotheworld]

Hi !

I am struggling in post-layout simulation using Calibre.

My layout passed drc, lvs and pex. Then, I created another schematic to form a new circuit including power sources and a symbolized instance.

it went to post-layout simulation by creating config and set the instance as "Calibre" in Hierarchy Editor.

After running post-layout simulation was completed, the magnitude of the output voltage is zero which is totally different in schematic simulation.

How to fix this problem?

Thank you!

 

[dick_freebird]

In earlier times you would invoke the "analog_extracted"
view, which was "refined" from the "extracted" view (for
what, how, I do not know, but there was that step to do).

If "caliber" view is what replaced "lvs" view then that
would not be the appropriate view for a simulation
netlist. Stop-view should either be "spectre" or "veriloga".

 

[hellotheworld]

Thank you for your reply.
When I created config, I used the spectre template.
I also tried to run post layout simulation in schematic view. In ADE, I added a word "calibre" in environment but it was unsuccessful. The CIW said "(OSSHNL-912 ) netlisting failed because terminal 'vdd!' ...".
I don't know whether is my layout design problem or others.

 

[mitsos1996]

How did you create the Calibre View? It is created automatically by Calibre View Setup Menu, did you populate the Menu correclty?

 

[hellotheworld]

This problem was solved. I changed all pin names to capital letters, e.g. vdd! --> VDD, vss! --> VSS. Then, running the post-layout simulation was successful. But I don't know why it works.

 

[dick_freebird]

Pins with a ! suffix are automatically "global"
while your all-caps, no-punctuation pins are
not.

You can't get a good post-layout netlist
without a passing LVS.

So maybe you have a broken net that is
made continuous in one view but not in
the other, like a hairline gap in what you
-think- is a continuous "vdd!" bus but only
one pin placed, so the "global" pin does not
get to define what you think is the entire net.
Probing might show that.