One area in which both formats need to improve is the handling of embedded IP. A design team or third-party company will often provide RTL for a block that can be integrated into a system-on-achip (SoC) design. In this case, there may be a number of options for low-power design in the IP, but the IP provider will want to limit the options to ensure that the IP will function correctly.
For example, an IP block may be constructed with several power-supply inputs, all connected to a single always-on supply. But if several voltages or several powerdown sequences are desired, the IP provider needs to constrain the possibilities. Neither CPF nor UPF provides a clean way to do this today. For UPF, the P1801 committee is actively discussing improvements, and Cadence may be internally considering improvements as well.
CPF and UPF cover 90% of the same concepts using completely different syntax. For voltage domains, power domains, retention cells, and other common lowpower design styles, low-power designers can represent their intent in either format. Yet there are several areas of difference between the formats. Notably, UPF requires Liberty to define library cells such as level shifters. In the next year, there won’t be any “convergence” onto a single power format. But designers can constructively use both formats to get their chips taped out.
Please refresh the page if you have trouble reading this text.
Search Electronic Design
Email Newsletter
Sponsored By:
The Find Power Products monthly newsletter brings you the most important new developments within the world of power design. The newsletter includes exerpts from industry leader Sam Davis's exclusive blog, as well as overviews of the latest new products.
Enter Email to Subscribe
Web Seminar
Sponsored By:
Title: Exploring How Good GUIs Drive Adoption in the Digital Power Management Space
Reprints
