A Design-for-Testability Architecture for Multichip Modules

Abstract

Abs tractBoard real estate requirements and execution speed demands ['] ,are contributing to the compressing of logic circuits to the point where test accessibility is becoming more and more difficult. The extreme of this trend is the multichip module, where accessibility at other than the 1/0 pins is inon-existent. Therefore, the testing of these devices is proving to be a difficult and tedlous problem which must be solved before commercial production of these devices can become commonplace. Through the use of a design-for-testability architecture involving boundary-scan coupled with other board-test techniques, this process can be made more manageable. MCMCross Section Figure 1. Cross section of a multichip module showing build-up of dielectric and metallization layers and chip bonding. Substrate in this example is a multi-layer ceramic PGA. Reproduced with the permission of NCR Corporation, Cokuiibia, Soiitli Carolina.

Testing of Interposer-Based 2.5D Integrated Circuits

“…The IEEE 1149.1 test-access port (TAP) and the associated boundary-scan architecture (IEEE 1149.1), the techniques described in [18] have been used in the past to test interconnects in Multi-Chip Modules (MCMs), which have similarities with 2.5D ICs [19,20]. For the testing of high density interconnects in the interposers of 2.5D ICs, IEEE 1149.1 can connect the I/O pins of the dies on the interposer serially using special boundary-scan cells, and can be controlled using a standardized finite-state machine (FSM).…”

Interconnect Testing and Test-Path Scheduling for Interposer-Based 2.5-D ICs

“…The system-in-package (SiP) technology, which became popular starting around 2000, improved upon MCMs in terms of integration densities [8]. The test problems mentioned in this paper were also of concern then and discussed in [9] and [10]. The main difference between a MCM (or SiP) and a 2.5-D IC lies in a passive silicon interposer that is placed between package and the dies.…”

A comparison of test requirements, methods, and results for seven MCM products

“…The easiest solution from the MCM producer's perspective is to obtain KGD. It has been shown in [7,8] that, overall, this is also usually the most cost effective alternative.…”