Computer-aided design and analysis of circuits and semiconductor – Nanotechnology related integrated circuit design
Reexamination Certificate
2002-03-20
2004-11-09
Whitmore, Stacy A. (Department: 2812)
Computer-aided design and analysis of circuits and semiconductor
Nanotechnology related integrated circuit design
Reexamination Certificate
active
06816997
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to the field of semiconductor design technology, and in particular, to systems and techniques used for implementing circuit designs into silicon based integrated circuits (ICs).
BACKGROUND
In the field of semiconductor design technology, a design rule check (DRC) is a well-known process for inspecting whether mask pattern data of a semiconductor integrated circuit is correctly designed in compliance with fabricators' topological layout rules (TLR). The TLR are unique to each fabrication facility, or semiconductor wafer plant, based on available process technologies, equipment limitations, etc. An example of prior art DRC system is illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 6,063,132 incorporated by reference herein.
Integrated circuit designers transform circuit schematics to mask data by drawing polygons that represent the physical masks to be fabricated on silicon. For example, a transistor symbol on a circuit schematic could be represented by simply drawing a POLY layer polygon (gate region) crossing a DIFFUSION layer polygon (source and drain regions) and both polygons are laid within a WELL layer polygon. These mask pattern data are usually in well-known GDS format (binary) and are used by a design rule checker to check against design rules embodied in coded form in a design rule check command file.
FIG. 1
illustrates the basic flow of design rule checking on mask pattern data of an integrated circuit in accordance with a prior art routine
100
. A design rule check (DRC) command file
120
is coded in accordance with a topological layout rule document
101
. DRC command file
120
and the mask pattern data
130
(representing the physical layout of the IC) are used as inputs by a design rule checker
140
(typically a software routine) for design error detection and to generate a results list. Any subsequent design errors detected must be corrected in the layout proposed by the IC designer as shown in block
150
. For some types of ICs, this process of checking the design errors can be automated, but for many others, it cannot.
A recent development in the IC industry has been the incorporation of memory and logic within the same IC, as found for example in embedded memory systems, and in so-called system-on-chip (SOC) designs. These systems present a unique challenge to the design process, because memory and logic circuits have different sizing, performance and scaling issues when embodied in silicon. Thus, logic and memory layout regions they must be treated differently during the verification process.
A first conventional method of checking design rules for an SOC design is described now with reference to the system
200
shown in FIG.
2
. In the case of a semiconductor foundry (i.e., those plants that specialize in rendering third party designs into silicon) a design rule check command file
220
is written by referring to a Foundry's Topological Layout Rule document (TLR)
201
. Therefore, this design rule command file typically only consists of so-called “Logic Rules”
210
applicable to a logic section of a chip under consideration. As before the Mask Pattern Data
230
for the chip is fed into a design rule checker
240
to check against these logic rules. The output of this process is a design rule check result file
250
.
At this point, the results consist of real logic error(s)
251
, false logic rule errors on memory blocks
252
and possibly real memory error(s)
253
. The false logic rule errors
252
are caused by the fact that logic circuits implemented in silicon typically require greater spacings, sizings and margins than memory circuits. An extra step
260
thus has to be carried out to filter false error(s) from the other real errors reported in the result database. The typical method is by manual effort—i.e., human eye review and filtering. This can be extremely time consuming and cumbersome since the number of false design rule errors will increase relative to the number of memory blocks used and the size of each memory instance.
Thus, this approach flags many false DRC errors because each memory bit cells and associated leaf cells can cause many DRC violations that are not “true” because they do not actually violate a memory design rule that is applicable to the memory block. An operator has to manually check all the violations against a memory design rule check at step
270
to see if they are real errors. They then iteratively repeat this process to arrive at a set of real logic errors
271
, and real memory errors
272
. Nonetheless, this process can often cause real errors to be overlooked. Furthermore, this process slows down the design development cycle because each error must be discussed with the IC design supplier, and this interaction can be time consuming as it requires cooperation between the IC designer, the foundry field support engineers, and the foundry itself.
A second conventional method of checking design rules is described below with system
300
referenced in
FIG. 3
, where like numbers are intended to denote like structures and operations unless otherwise noted. In this approach, a Cell Delete or Masking technique
310
masks out the whole memory instance including memory bit cell arrays and other associated logic support circuitry such as wordline decoder, sense amplifier, etc. from design rule checks performed by checker
340
on GDS file
330
. The design rule check (DRC) results
350
will thus consist only of real logic errors
351
. However, this method assumes the memory blocks used are DRC clean and that the interfaces (or intermediate regions) between the memory and logic parts satisfy logic rules. Consequently, it will not detect any real errors in such features.
Accordingly, a substantial need exists in this field of art for an improved design verification tool that eliminates the aforementioned problems.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
An object of the present invention, therefore, is to provide a design rule checking system and method that accurately reports appropriate errors for appropriate regions in a system that includes two different kinds of circuits, i.e., such as memory and logic.
A related object is to eliminate false errors caused by design rule checking tools examining regions that are not subject to the same design rules supported by the design rule-checking tool.
These objects are achieved by the present invention, which provides a system and method of checking design rules to determine whether or not a logic part (all non-memory devices that have to satisfy TLR) of a mask pattern data obeys logic rules (as specified in a TLR document) and the memory part of a mask pattern data obeys memory rules (in this case, logic rules that are modified appropriately for a memory area to accommodate the more liberal values available for such regions). This method helps users filter out false errors due to logic rule checks in a memory block, and further helps pinpoint real design rule errors in the mask pattern data.
Another aspect of the invention covets the creation of customized rules appropriate for different types of memory regions that might be included on a chip, where such customized rules are based on modifying a standard logic rule by “pushing” more liberal memory based parameter on to a stricter logic based parameter.
Yet another aspect of the invention pertains to a program that can be executed on any number of conventional computing systems for creating such customized rules, and/or for performing a design rule check on mask pattern data based on such customized rule sets.
Still another aspect of the invention concerns a system configured with the above mentioned customized design rules and programs executing on a conventional computer system.
In a preferred embodiment, the results are categorized in different categories in accordance with where they occur, such as in Logic, Bordered Single Port (BDSP) SRAM, Borderless Single Port (BLSP) SRAM, Dual Port (DP) SRAM and ROM groups. Furthermore it will more accurately detect and classify mistakes or any modifi
Lam Nimcho
Teh Cheehoe
Truong Mau
Gross J. Nicholas
Whitmore Stacy A.
LandOfFree
System and method for performing design rule check does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with System and method for performing design rule check, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and System and method for performing design rule check will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3350851