Layout-Aware, IR-Drop Tolerant Transition Fault Pattern Generation

Abstract

Market and customer demands have continued to push the limits of CMOS performance. At-speed test has become a common method to ensure these high performance chips are being shipped to the customers fault-free. However, at-speed tests have been known to create higher-than-average switching activity, which normally is not accounted for in the design of the power supply network. This potentially creates conditions for additional delay in the chip; causing it to fail during test. In this paper, we propose a pattern compaction technique that considers the layout and gate distribution when generating transition delay fault patterns. The technique focuses on evenly distributing switching activity generated by the patterns across the layout rather than allowing high switching activity to occur in a small area in the chip that could occur with conventional delay fault pattern generation. Due to the relationship between switching activity and IR-drop, the reduction of switching will prevent large IR-drop in high demand regions while still allowing a suitable amount of switching to occur elsewhere on the chip to prevent fault coverage loss. This even distribution of switching on the chip will also result in avoiding hot-spots.

Power-aware test generation with guaranteed launch safety for at-speed scan testing

“…The metal layers are connected by vias, and cells are connected to lower-level (e.g., M2 through M4) vias. Thus, the aggressor region of a gate G can be identified as follows [15]: First, identify the powering via for G, by which G is directly powered. Then, identify all current-sink cells for the powering via of G, and these cells are the aggressor cells for G. A simplified example (GND wires ignored) is shown in Fig.…”

Cost-effective IR-drop failure identification and yield recovery through a failure-adaptive test scheme

“…The chip can be partitioned to a number of power grids with the center of each grid being the crosspoint of the vertical and horizontal power nets [6], as shown in Figure 2(a). Distinct grids may have varying criticality in terms of IR-drop intensity.…”

“…One category of approaches imposes power constraints [7] in the test compaction phase to guarantee that the compacted test vectors fulfill IR-drop thresholds [6]. However, the effectiveness of these techniques hinges on the IR-drop distribution of the original test set.…”