Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Calibre PEX C+CC extraction: floating nets, simulation fails

ianrox

Newbie level 5
Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Messages
8
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1
Activity points
64
Hi
I am facing a strange issue on pex extraction. I am making a simple device and created the layout. LVS is clean. When I do a transistor level R+C+CC extraction, there is no warning and the calibre extracted simulation works as expected. However to speed simulations, when I try a C+CC extraction, there are 3 floating gate warnings and the calibre extracted simulation fails. I tried finding a cause but to no success. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 

Akshaay

Full Member level 1
Joined
Jul 13, 2018
Messages
98
Helped
1
Reputation
2
Reaction score
1
Trophy points
8
Activity points
703
can you check if you have selected something like "Run extraction even if LVS fail". I think in the first case you might have selected something like this.
If it is showing floating gates,then it has to be corrected. Its more like some setup issue.
 

ianrox

Newbie level 5
Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Messages
8
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1
Activity points
64
Hi Akshaay
Thanks for your suggestion. That would make sense if LVS didn't pass, but LVS is always successful, regardless of with extraction I do( C+CC, or R+C+CC).
LVS.PNG
 

Attachments

  • pastedImage (3).png
    pastedImage (3).png
    17.5 KB · Views: 19
  • pastedImage (2).png
    pastedImage (2).png
    18.4 KB · Views: 16
  • pastedImage (1).png
    pastedImage (1).png
    30.2 KB · Views: 22
  • pastedImage.png
    pastedImage.png
    14 KB · Views: 20

ianrox

Newbie level 5
Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Messages
8
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1
Activity points
64
Need to check these devices in schematic then
Yeah, I checked that as well. Everything in the top level and in the lowest level seem to be connected properly with pins as shown in the figure. The gate of the transistor isn't floating in the schematic. There is something going wrong in the extraction I feel. Since R+C+CC works while C+CC doesn't.
 

Attachments

  • flop.PNG
    flop.PNG
    7 KB · Views: 15
  • flip.PNG
    flip.PNG
    4 KB · Views: 13

ianrox

Newbie level 5
Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Messages
8
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1
Activity points
64
Did you connect any signals/sources to the gate nets, in your SPICE simulation deck?
Hi Timof, In the top level, I have attached a voltage source to the reset pin. The reset pin connects to the gate nets internally.
 

Attachments

  • top.PNG
    top.PNG
    10.9 KB · Views: 10

timof

Advanced Member level 2
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
652
Helped
213
Reputation
426
Reaction score
209
Trophy points
1,323
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Activity points
6,907
I can't think of anything.
If your RC extraction works well, for simulation, C-only extraction should also work well.
There is something strange, like wrong file, etc.
 

ianrox

Newbie level 5
Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Messages
8
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1
Activity points
64
I can't think of anything.
If your RC extraction works well, for simulation, C-only extraction should also work well.
There is something strange, like wrong file, etc.
Yeah, that's the weird thing. I don't change anything when going from R+C+CC to C+CC. Same file, same settings..I just select Extraction type as C+CC instead of R+C+CC. I've been stuck on this for a long time now :(
 

martinnl

Newbie level 4
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
6
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1,281
Activity points
1,337
If I understand the issue correctly it is the extracted schematic that has unconnected/shorted nets?

In that case, try to choose another schematic extraction type like array placement. I don't have a Calibre license available now but the option is in the save extraction view window that pop-ups after the extraction is complete.

Otherwise extract to a spice netlist and run with that one.
 

ianrox

Newbie level 5
Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Messages
8
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1
Activity points
64
If I understand the issue correctly it is the extracted schematic that has unconnected/shorted nets?

In that case, try to choose another schematic extraction type like array placement. I don't have a Calibre license available now but the option is in the save extraction view window that pop-ups after the extraction is complete.

Otherwise extract to a spice netlist and run with that one.
Hi martinnl, you are right. The extracted schematic for C,CC extraction has unconnected nets, but R,C,CC extraction is fine. I am using array placement from the start, for both types of extractions. I haven't ever tried to extract to a spice netlist. I am not sure how its done but I'll check that.
 

Attachments

  • pastedImage (1) (1).png
    pastedImage (1) (1).png
    30.2 KB · Views: 9

timof

Advanced Member level 2
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
652
Helped
213
Reputation
426
Reaction score
209
Trophy points
1,323
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Activity points
6,907
Any parasitic extraction tool can generate any output post-layout netlist format - SPICE netlist, DSPF, SPEF, extracted view, (some - "Calibre View", "Smart View", etc.).
The content is the same, just the format is different.
Some file formats are much easier to veiw / debug / analyze than others.
For example, DSPF is a simple text-based format, with lots of annotations, showing the nets, ports, instance pins (as SPICE comments), etc.

Try to generate DSPF file (in Calibre world, they like to give a default extension "*.pex.netlist", while other extractors would name it *.spf or *.dspf.
Then veiw it, to make sense out of it, or pot it here, we can help with this.
 

ianrox

Newbie level 5
Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Messages
8
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1
Activity points
64
Hi Timof,
Thanks for the explanation. Youre right, the pex.netlist file is always generated. I opened it to try and make sense but got a bit confused. So as reference, my reset_bar net is always floating, and the gates of M8,9 and 10 are supposed to be floating where the reset net is supposed to connect. I went to the netlist file and tried to see the reset_bar net. I have attached some of the places where that particular net shows up. Maybe you can help make sense of it.
 

Attachments

  • net2.PNG
    net2.PNG
    21.5 KB · Views: 13
  • net1.PNG
    net1.PNG
    10.6 KB · Views: 12
  • pastedImage.png
    pastedImage.png
    14 KB · Views: 12

martinnl

Newbie level 4
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
6
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1,281
Activity points
1,337
In the netlist it looks fine as I understand the desired connection. In your first image you have the parasitic caps and in the second the transistors.

Just to rule out one thing: It looks like you made a "check and save" in the extracted calibreview and then saw the floating net and the other issues. Don't do that. Quite often Calibreviews end up with nets on top of each other or unconnected labels, this could be setup or whatever but it happens, so a check and save marks those as errors. But the underlying database has the correct connections. Did you try and simulate with a c+cc calibreview directly after extraction?

Bottom line is I'm sure the extraction is correct, nothing is indicating otherwise, it's the calibreview generation which is a bit broken.
 

ianrox

Newbie level 5
Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Messages
8
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1
Activity points
64
In the netlist it looks fine as I understand the desired connection. In your first image you have the parasitic caps and in the second the transistors.

Just to rule out one thing: It looks like you made a "check and save" in the extracted calibreview and then saw the floating net and the other issues. Don't do that. Quite often Calibreviews end up with nets on top of each other or unconnected labels, this could be setup or whatever but it happens, so a check and save marks those as errors. But the underlying database has the correct connections. Did you try and simulate with a c+cc calibreview directly after extraction?

Bottom line is I'm sure the extraction is correct, nothing is indicating otherwise, it's the calibreview generation which is a bit broken.
Thanks for the insight. I agree with you, as the extraction seems ok. In the calibre generation menu, at the bottom, I turned on 'generate SPECTRE netlist' and that netlist also had the gate terminal connected to the 'reset_bar' net as we would expect (I9_MM3) in the figure below. Unfortunately I usually don't check and save calibre anyway. The moment I set up the calibre generation menu shown below, I get the warnings. Then if I open the calibre view, I see the warnings marked already.
 

Attachments

  • net4.PNG
    net4.PNG
    8.5 KB · Views: 13
  • net3.PNG
    net3.PNG
    30.1 KB · Views: 13

martinnl

Newbie level 4
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
6
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1,281
Activity points
1,337
OK, that would have been too easy :)

But your netlist you attached in the last post is incorrect right? The net name is I9_reset_bar but should be reset_bar.

Can you please show the whole top level and the flip-flops if it doesn't contain sensitive information. Preferably the netlist as well, at least the parts containing all transistors that should be connected to reset_bar and the subcircuit definition.

Have you tried extracting without any parasitics? If the error persists the netlists become a bit smaller and easier to dig into.

Also, can you recreate the problem if you extract a single flip-flop?
 

LaTeX Commands Quick-Menu:

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top