undefined layer

[Alan_yi]

I am using DRC, LVS and LPE files (available from UMC 90nm design kit). DRC and LVS are running well, but when I run Calibre-> PEX (Parasitic Extraction) the following error is generated:

"Undefined layer name parameter: NSD_C"

LPE file has definition rules similar to the following given below:

RESISTANCE SHEET NSD_C [7.00 0] MASK
RESISTANCE SHEET PSD_C [7.00 0] MASK
RESISTANCE SHEET PLY_C [8.00 0] MASK

Does anybody know what's the problem due to and how I can fix it?

 

[erikl]

Problem on post layout simulation

PEX must know where to find the values for these parameters. Find them in your foundry design kit and tell Calibre where to find it!

 

[Alan_yi]

Re: Problem on post layout simulation

Thanks erikl

The problem happens when I load the .tech file which is used for the LPE, the error comes out. It seems that the problem happens while compiling the rule files. I don't know how to solve it. In the DRC and LVS rule files, normally error happens when the "include" don't point to the right path.

 

[erikl]

Problem on post layout simulation

May be you can find these values in the documentation? As a work-around, you could replace the variables by their corresponding values. I guess the 2 values between the rectangular brackets [following the variable]
are the corresponding limit values for these variables.

 

[AlexL]

Re: Problem on post layout simulation

Just in case someone will run into similar trouble: the solution that worked for me was to include in your pex tech file the lvs rule file (which correspondingly defines all the layers) - just put "INCLUDE lvs_file_path" in the beginning of the pex file. And don't forget to turn switch #DEFINE PEXRUN on in the lvs rules.

 

[Reeuenta]

Re: Problem on post layout simulation

Just in case someone will run into similar trouble: the solution that worked for me was to include in your pex tech file the lvs rule file (which correspondingly defines all the layers) - just put "INCLUDE lvs_file_path" in the beginning of the pex file. And don't forget to turn switch #DEFINE PEXRUN on in the lvs rules.

Also the UMC PDK suit~
That's DID solve my problem, thanks a lot~

 

[mohamedabouzied]

Re: Problem on post layout simulation

Just in case someone will run into similar trouble: the solution that worked for me was to include in your pex tech file the lvs rule file (which correspondingly defines all the layers) - just put "INCLUDE lvs_file_path" in the beginning of the pex file. And don't forget to turn switch #DEFINE PEXRUN on in the lvs rules.

Thank you very much

 

[tdf]

Re: Problem on post layout simulation

Hi mohamedabouzied,

Did you solve the issue? Can you share your experiment?

I do as the AlexL's guide, and it does not work. The error is: duplicate original layer specification statement...

Thanks,

 

[liangjh05]

Re: Problem on post layout simulation

Thank you so much AlexL！

 

[hominhtuan]

Re: Problem on post layout simulation

i have a problem with DRC and LVS. i design an INVERTER layout and when i run DRC an error as below
the job 'hercules_drc_25' started on host 'localhost' with processid 8498 failed to start ỏ complete successfully ; the job return code is 34.
plz help me fix it

 

[hien.rfic]

Re: Problem on post layout simulation

Just in case someone will run into similar trouble: the solution that worked for me was to include in your pex tech file the lvs rule file (which correspondingly defines all the layers) - just put "INCLUDE lvs_file_path" in the beginning of the pex file. And don't forget to turn switch #DEFINE PEXRUN on in the lvs rules.

Hi everyone,

Thank AlexL.

I followed AlexL's instruction and I got another error: Error MAC3 on line xx of $TECHDIR/LVS/Include/<tech>.lvs_extract.cal - duplicate DMACRO definition name.

How can I fix this error? Thank you so much.

 

[slizak]

Re: Problem on post layout simulation

Hi Hien-

This means that somewhere in the total set of rules there are two DMACRO defintions with the same name. You can either try editing one to a different name (might be tricky if the macros are actually different) or just comment one out if the definitions are the same.

You may want to check that the file is not being included twice; if it is, fixing this error will just cause another one later when something else is specified twice that isn't allowed to be.