Formal verification best practices: investigating a deadlock
In our first episode from last week we focused on best practices when setting up formal verification on a component. Our setup is now ready with protocol checkers to avoid unrealistic scenarios (which also helped find a new bug), and with basic abstractions to improve performances. It’s now time to tackle our real task: reproducing a deadlock bug found using simulation. Let’s dive deep into it.
Reproducing the deadlock bug
To ensure a design is deadlock free, one approach consists in verifying that it is “always eventually” able to respond to a request. The wording is important. Regardless of the current state and the number of cycles we must wait, in the future the design must respond.
To read the full article, click here
Related Semiconductor IP
- TSMC 7nm 0V75 / 0V9 ESD Local Clamp – Low Cap
- TSMC 65nm 3V3 ESD Local Clamp – Rad Hard
- TSMC 5nm 1V8, 1.2V and 0.9V ESD Local Protection – Low Cap
- TSMC 3nm 3V3 ESD Local Clamp
- TSMC 3nm 1V2 ESD Local Clamp – Low Capacitance
Related Blogs
- Formal verification best practices to reach your targets
- Formal verification best practices: towards end-to-end properties
- Formal verification best practices: checking data corruption
- Formal verification best practices: sign-off and wrap-up
Latest Blogs
- Beyond Trusted: What the NSA’s New Guidance Means for Hardware Security
- A scalable, shader-programmable vector graphics GPU core for low-power MCUs
- Navigating ISO 26262 Part 11: A Guide for Semiconductor Architects
- Embedded Security explained: Digital signatures
- Hardware security verification must go beyond functional testing