[Technology Report]
DFM Remains The Elephant In The Room
David Maliniak
ED Online ID #14458
January 11, 2007
Copyright © 2006 Penton Media, Inc., All rights reserved. Printing of this document is for personal use only.
Reprints
With 65-nm processes going
mainstream, designers will
soon turn their attention to
the 45-nm process node.
And if you think 65 nm was
tough to contend with in the
fab, the 45-nm plateau opens the door to
even uglier possibilities—trashing yields
and turning ever-so-painstakingly crafted
layouts into something resembling oatmeal running down a wall.
In 2007, it'll be imperative for designers to embrace technology to address
parametric yield. Statistical static timing
analysis, statistical leakage analysis,
design optimizations based on lithography, and simulation of chemical-mechanical-polishing (CMP) process steps are all
elements of what make up design-formanufacturing (DFM) techniques.
Unprecedented complexity in today's
system-on-a-chip (SoC) designs is driving
foundries to the limits of classical CMOS
scaling. In addition, the debut of immersion lithographic processes means that
designers face new challenges in terms
of high numerical-aperture and polarization effects. Systematic and parametric
defects now outrank random defects as
the primary causes of yield loss.
Designers must look for predictability in
silicon processes and real connections
between design and manufacturing. Tool
flows that make it possible to perform
yield analysis before fabrication, or even
yield grading based on a given set of
process conditions, will prove critical.
That's because design teams and
foundries will be able to share the necessary data for the sake of yield (see "Dealing With Shades of Gray," p. 64).
Physical implementation flows will
become more "process-aware." They're
already beginning to incorporate fab-specific parametric data. But truly effective
DFM will require an approach spanning the
entire design and implementation flow.
It'll be very difficult, however, for the
DFM puzzle to be solved in the implementation process. Assessment of a number of
process variabilities can't be accounted for
during the layout generation. Thus, look for
two new breeds of EDA tools to emerge.
One breed will be a comprehensive
platform that analyzes the impact of
process variability. Such a platform will
combine all manufacturability- and yieldrelated analyses and become the tool for
implementing the "DFM sign-off" (or socalled "yield sign-off") step in the design flow (see the figure). The second new
breed will involve post-place-and-route
multipurpose layout "polishing." These
tools will repair or optimize design layout
to make it more robust and less sensitive
to process variations.
Also, look for a move to in-context,
model-based electrical DFM analysis
tools that incorporate fab data on lithography, reticle-enhancement technology,
optical-proximity correction, CMP, masks,
and etching.
Layout Automation
Layout needs
further automation. Look for new technology that automates the layout of specialized designs, such as memories, datapath
processors, and imaging and display ICs.
All of these exhibit layout characteristics
that fall outside of traditional ASIC design
styles. At present, layout of such devices is
typically performed manually.
Such technologies will drive manual
"polygon pushing" techniques toward
obsolescence. Further, yield issues will
accelerate the adoption of automated layout techniques. These methodologies will
integrate design and analysis, using layout
automation to manage the yield information from local layout analysis.
Sharing The Load
Thanks to rising
mask and wafer costs, some systems
houses have held off on using state-of-theart process technologies. This year, more
integrated device manufacturers (IDMs)
and fabless semiconductor firms will
share the upfront costs of a mask set and
wafer run across multiple designs, including those from other companies.
Multiproject wafer (MPW) services are
available from major fabs and specialists
in such services, usually working with fabs
like IBM, AMIS, and TSMC. For each mask
set and wafer run, users only pay for the
physical area of the masks and wafers
they use, so costs can be dramatically lower than they would be with a dedicated
mask set and wafer run.
|