US 5,457,697 AGrant
Pseudo-Exhaustive Self-Test Technique
Issue Date:1995-10-10
•2 Claims
•8 Drawing Sheets
Abstract
Pseudo-exhaustive self-testing of an electronic circuit (10), containing groups of combinational elements (14.sub.1,14.sub.2, 14.sub.3 . . . 14.sub.n), is accomplished by first partitioning the groups of combinational elements into sub-cones having no more than w inputs each by designating appropriate nodes ("test points") in each cone as the output of a sub-cone. A set of test vectors {a.sub.1, a.sub.2 . . . a.sub.w, b.sub.1, b.sub.2 . . . b.sub.w } is then generated (via an internal generator 74) such that when the vectors are applied to the sub-cones (14.sub.1.sbsb.a, 14.sub.1.sbsb.b . . . . 14.sub.i.sbsb.j), each sub-cone will be exhaustively tested. Each of the inputs of the sub-cones is assigned to receive a vector such that the vectors received at the inputs are linearly independent. The subset of vectors is applied through each of a plurality of pseudo-exhaustive self-test (PEST) flip-flop circuits (88) and through the test points to test the circuit. The PEST flip-flop circuits 88 also serve to advantageously compact and observe the response data produced by each sub-cone (14.sub.i.sbsb.j) with that of an upstream sub-cone.
Metadata
Assignee
- AT&T IPM Corp.
Inventors
- John A. Malleo-Roach
- Paul W. Rutkowski
- Eleanor Wu
Application Information
Application Number:US 9353224
Filing Date:1992-08-26
Priority Date:1990-02-26
Art Unit:236
Classifications
IPC:
G01R 313183G01R 313185
Field of Search:
37122.1;22.4;22.5;27;223
Patent Drawings (8 sheets)
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD
This invention relates generally to a technique for accomplishing self-testing of a sequential digital integrated circuit to find the faults (if any) therein.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Digital integrated circuits are conventionally tested by successively applying test vectors to the inputs of the circuit. Upon receipt of each test vector, which takes the form of a pattern of ones and/or zeros, the circuit responds by producing a response at its outputs, each response also being comprised of a pattern of ones and/or zeros. When the circuit is operating properly, the response at each output of the circuit will match an expected response for each input test vector. If a fault exists, then a mismatch occurs. The higher the percentage of possible faults that can be detected, the greater the confidence of the lack of any faults in the circuit. Achieving 100% fault coverage is very difficult without exhaustive testing. In the past, testing of a circuit has been accomplished by first mathematically modeling the circuit and all its possible faults. Using the mathematical model, a set of test vectors is then generated, which, when successively applied to the circuit, may reveal most of the possible faults. While algorithms for fault simulation and test vector generation exist, applying such algorithms to a circuit of even moderate complexity is a time-consuming task, often requiring weeks or months of effort. As a practical matter, obtaining 100% fault coverage, while desirable, has previously proven impractical.
Thus, there is a need for a technique for achieving 100% fault coverage of a sequential digital integrated circuit without the need for fault simulation or deterministic test generation.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Briefly, in accordance with the invention, a method is disclosed for pseudo-exhaustively testing a sequential digital circuit comprised of both combinational elements (i.e., AND, NAND, NOT, OR or NOR gates) and sequential elements (i.e., flip-flops). The method is initiated by partitioning the combinational elements into "cones" (i.e., groups of elements), each cone having a single output and no more than a predetermined number of inputs. The limited number of inputs to each cone allows it to be easily exhaustively tested as described hereinafter. Following partitioning, a finite set of test vectors, referred to as "canonical vectors," is generated by combining a binary vector-counting sequence with a prescribed logical variation of the counting sequence. This set of the canonical vectors is assigned to the inputs of each cone such that the vectors assigned to each cone are linearly independent of each other. In this way, all of the cones can be tested simultaneously while, at the same time, each cone is exhaustively tested. As each assigned canonical vector of the set is applied to the inputs of its associated cone, a response is produced at the output of the cone. The responses are successively compacted to yield a reduced length stream of bits representative of the response of the combinational elements to the canonical vectors. The sequential elements are themselves tested by linking them in daisy-chain fashion and then employing well-known scan testing techniques.
The above-described technique is referred to as "pseudo-exhaustive" because the canonical vectors assigned to each logic cone serve to exhaustively test the cones. By applying the canonical vectors to the cones in parallel, all of the cones can be tested. In this way, the combinational elements can be exhaustively tested in a rapid fashion.
In accordance with another aspect of the invention, the above-described technique can be implemented within a sequential digital integrated circuit to render the circuit "self-testing." In this regard, the circuit must be modified to include a vector generator for generating the canonical vectors. Further, each flip-flop in the circuit is modified to be a "Pseudo-Exhaustive Self-Test" (PEST) flip-flop which serves to advantageously compact the responses from the logic cones as well as to provide a link with each of the other PEST flip-flops, allowing them to be daisy-chained together for scan testing.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a conventional prior art circuit which is to be pseudo-exhaustively self-tested in accordance with the technique of the present invention;
FIG. 2 is a block schematic diagram of a logic cone comprising a portion of the prior art circuit of FIG. 1;
FIG. 3 is a block schematic diagram of each of a pair of sub-cones obtained by partitioning the cone of FIG. 2;
FIG. 4 is a flowchart description of a process by which the logic cone of FIG. 2 is partitioned;
FIG. 5 is a flowchart representation of a process for assigning test vectors to the partitioned cone of FIG. 2;
FIG. 6 is a block diagram of a test vector generator which may be added to the circuit of FIG. 1 to generate test vectors which are applied to test the circuit;
FIG. 7 is a block diagram of a test point multiplexer for incorporation within the circuit of FIG. 3 to apply the vectors generated by the generator of FIG. 6;
FIG. 8 is a block schematic diagram of a pseudo-exhaustive self-test (PEST) flip-flop circuit which, when substituted for a portion of the circuit of FIG. 1, serves to compact response data generated by the circuit upon receipt of a test vector and to multiplex the test vectors with the data normally input to the circuit; and
FIG. 9 is a block schematic diagram of a test point compactor for interfacing a portion of the circuit of FIG. 3 to the PEST flip-flop circuit of FIG. 7.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
Introduction (Circuit Model)
FIG. 1 shows a model of a conventional sequential digital electronic circuit 10 which is to be tested. When modeled in the manner shown in FIG. 1, the circuit 10 takes the form of a plurality of registers 12.sub.1, 12.sub.2, 12.sub.3 . . . 12.sub.m and a plurality of logic cones 14.sub.1, 14.sub.2, 14.sub.3 . . . 14.sub.n where m and n are integers. Each register 12.sub.i represents a set of one or more sequential elements 16, each element comprised of a flip-flop. As seen in FIG. 2, each logic cone 14.sub.i represents a group of combinational elements 18.sub.1, 18.sub.2, 18.sub.3 . . . 18.sub.k (where k is an integer) which are coupled together such that each logic cone may have as few as one or as many as p inputs CI.sub.1, CI.sub.2, CI.sub.3 . . . CI.sub.p (where p is an integer) and a single output CO. Each of the logic elements 18.sub.i may take the form of an AND, OR, NAND, NOR or NOT logic gate.
The particular cone 14.sub.i shown in FIG. 2 is comprised of seven logic gates 18.sub.1, 18.sub.2, 18.sub.3, 18.sub.4, 18.sub.5, 18.sub.6 and 18.sub.7. The logic gates 18.sub.1 and 18.sub.2 are each two-input AND gates whose inputs are coupled to a separate one of the cone inputs CI.sub.1 -CI.sub.4. The outputs of the gates 18.sub.1 and 18.sub.2 (designated by nodes 20.sub.1 and 20.sub.2, respectively) are inputs of the logic gate 18.sub.3 which is a two-input OR gate. The logic gate 18.sub.3 has its output (node 20.sub.3) coupled to one of the inputs of the logic gate 18.sub.4 which is also a two input OR gate. The logic gate 18.sub.5 is a single-input NOT gate whose input is the cone input CI.sub.5 and whose output (node 20.sub.5) is the second input of the logic element 18.sub.4. The output of the logic gate 18.sub.5 is also coupled to one of the inputs of the logic gate 18.sub.6 which is a four-input AND gate. Each of the remaining inputs of the logic gate 18.sub.6 is coupled to a separate one of the cone inputs CI.sub.6 -CI.sub.8, respectively. The logic gates 18.sub.6 and 18.sub.4 have their outputs (nodes 20.sub.6 and 20.sub.4) coupled to a separate one of the inputs of a two-input logic element 18.sub.7 (a two-input NAND gate) having an output 20.sub.7 which serves as the cone output CO.
The cone 14.sub.i depicted in FIG. 2 is merely exemplary and the other cones 14.sub.1 -14.sub.n may be structured differently, depending on the configuration of the circuit 10 whose combinational elements are to be modeled by the cones. It is important to remember that while each of the cones 14.sub.1 -14.sub.n may have as many as p inputs CI.sub.1 -CI.sub.p, each cone has but one output CO. Thus, if the circuit 10 were comprised of a plurality of combinational elements 18 coupled so as to have x inputs and y outputs, the combinational elements in the circuit could be modeled by y cones 14.sub.1 -14.sub.y, each having as many as x inputs.
Partitioning (Overview)
Complete testing of the circuit 10 of FIG. 1 requires that both the registers 12.sub.1, 12.sub.2, 12.sub.3 . . . 12.sub.m and the logic cones 14.sub.1, 14.sub.2, 14.sub.3 . . . 14.sub.n be tested. The registers 12.sub.1, 12.sub.2, 12.sub.3 . . . 12.sub.m can be self-tested by appropriately sequencing their input signals in a manner described hereinafter. The logic cones 14.sub.1, 14.sub.2, 14.sub.3 . . . 14.sub.n are tested by applying successive test vectors to their inputs then analyzing the response signals at their outputs.
If the largest of the logic cones 14.sub.1, 14.sub.2 . . . 14.sub.n in the circuit 10 has w inputs (where w is an integer), then the absolute lower bound on the number of test vectors required to exhaustively test all of the cones simultaneously is 2.sup.w. Most present day schemes either require more than 2.sup.w test vectors to accomplish such exhaustive testing or have difficulty in testing all of the cones simultaneously and have to resort to test scheduling, thus lengthening the testing process.
To overcome these difficulties, we have invented a pseudo-exhaustive testing technique. The first step in pseudo-exhaustively testing the circuit 10 is to establish the maximum size of w, the largest number of inputs to any of the cones 14.sub.1, 14.sub.2, 14.sub.3 . . . 14.sub.n. Thus far, the maximum input size of the largest of the cones 14.sub.1, 14.sub.2, 14.sub.3 . . . 14.sub.n has not been treated as a variable, but rather as a constant arising from the modeling of the combinational elements of the circuit 10 so as to be represented by the cones themselves. However, in accordance with the invention, it is possible to reduce the number of cone inputs w by partitioning the cones 14.sub.1 -14.sub.n into smaller "sub-cones." By reducing the value of w, the length of the test vectors required to accomplish exhaustive testing can be minimized, reducing the time required to accomplish testing.
Referring to FIG. 3, the logic cone 14.sub.i which has eight inputs (w=8) may be partitioned into a first sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.b having six inputs and a second sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.a which has four inputs. Partitioning each logic cone 14.sub.i into two or more sub-cones 14.sub.i.sbsb.a, 14.sub.i.sbsb.b . . . is simply a matter of designating which of the nodes 20.sub.1, 20.sub.2, 20.sub.3 . . . will serve as a "test point," that is, the output of a sub-cone. Referring to FIG. 3, designating the node 20.sub.6 as a test point (TP) establishes a sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.a comprised of the gates 18.sub.5 and 18.sub.6. The sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.a has, as its inputs, the cone inputs CI.sub.5 -CI.sub.8 and has the node 20.sub.6 as its output.
Designating the node 20.sub.6 as a test point also establishes a second sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.b which is comprised of the gates 18.sub.1 -18.sub.5 and 18.sub.7. (Note that the gate 18.sub.5 is shared by both of the sub-cones 14.sub.i.sbsb.a and 14.sub.i.sbsb.b). The sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.b has, among its inputs, the cone inputs CI.sub.1 -CI.sub.5. In addition, the sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.b also has an additional input, i.e., the input at the gate 18.sub.7, which, under normal operation of the circuit 10 of FIG. 1, receives the output of the gate 18.sub.6, now part of the sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.a.
During testing of the sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.b, it is undesirable for the gate 18.sub.6 to feed the gate 18.sub.7 when the former lies within a different sub-cone from the latter because each sub-cone should be supplied with an exhaustive set of test vectors. To allow for parallel testing, a test point multiplexer 21, described in greater detail with respect to FIG. 7, is associated with the sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.a and serves to connect the node 20.sub.6 to the gate 18.sub.7 of the sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.b. During normal operation of the circuit 10 of FIG. 1, the test point multiplexer 21 passes the signal at the node 20.sub.6 to the gate 18.sub.7 as would normally occur absent the multiplexer 21. However, during testing, the test point multiplexer 21 injects a test vector into the gate 18.sub.7 so that the sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.b can be tested exhaustively. Also associated with the sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.a is a test point compactor 22 which, as will be described in greater detail in FIG. 9, serves to compact the test response of the sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.a.
It may seem that partitioning the cones 14.sub.1 -14.sub.n into a set of sub-cones 14.sub.1.sbsb.a, 14.sub.1.sbsb.b . . . , 14.sub.2.sbsb.a, 14.sub.2.sbsb.b . . . , 14.sub.n.sbsb.a 14.sub.n.sbsb.b . . . 14.sub.n.sbsb.x (where x is an integer) is antithetical to the goal of accomplishing rapid, exhaustive testing of the combinational elements 18.sub.1 -18.sub.k in each cone. However, when the cones 14.sub.1 -14.sub.n are partitioned into the sub-cones 14.sub.1.sbsb.a -14.sub.n.sbsb.x, each resultant sub-cone, which has a reduced number of inputs, can be exhaustively tested with a smaller number of vectors. While the number of sub-cones created by partitioning always exceeds the original number of cones 14.sub.1 -14.sub.n, the sub-cones can be tested in parallel. By testing each sub-cone with a reduced number of test vectors in parallel with the other sub-cones, the actual testing time may be reduced.
Partitioning Procedure
In accordance with the present invention, the first step in the process of pseudo-exhaustively testing the logic cones 14.sub.1, 14.sub.2 . . . 14.sub.n is to partition them into a set of sub-cones 14.sub.1.sbsb.a -14.sub.n.sbsb.x in the manner just described. Referring to FIG. 4, there is shown a flowchart diagram of a method employed to partition each of the cones 14.sub.1, 14.sub.2 . . . 14.sub.n into a set of sub-cones 14.sub.1.sbsb.a -14.sub.n.sbsb.x by designating which of the nodes in each cone is to serve as a test point TP (i.e., the output of a sub-cone). The first step (step 23) in the partitioning process is to examine each node 20.sub.i (i being initially set to 1) in each of the cones 14.sub.1 -14.sub.n to determine the node's primary inputs and its primary outputs. For example, in FIG. 2, the node 20.sub.6 is fed by the input CI.sub.5 -CI.sub.8 and has the cone output CO as its output. In practice, two or more of the cones 14.sub.1, 14.sub.2 . . . 14.sub.n may have their inputs overlapping so that a given one of the nodes 20.sub.1 . . . 20.sub.n may feed more than one output.
Following step 23, step 24 is executed and, for each node 20.sub.i in each of the cones 14.sub.1 -14.sub.n, a calculation is made to determine how many, if any, of the cones will be reduced to the desired input size (w) if the particular node is designated as a test point (TP). The result of the calculation yields a rating for each node which represents the desirability of assigning the node as a test point. The greater the number of cones 14.sub.1 -14.sub.n which will be reduced in size, the higher the rating. The rating is made more accurate by executing step 26. During step 26 a calculation is made for each node 20.sub.i in those cones not reduced to the proper size to determine the reduction of the number of inputs if the node were designated as a test point. Step 28 is executed following step 26, and a final rating is established for each of the nodes 20.sub.1 -20.sub.n based on the calculations made during the previous steps.
Following step 28, step 30 is executed and the node rated highest is designated as a test point, thereby partitioning the cone containing the node into two or more sub-cones 14.sub.i.sbsb.a, 14.sub.i.sbsb.b . . . as previously described with respect to FIG. 3. More than one of the cones 14.sub.i -14.sub.n may be partitioned by the designation of a particular node 20.sub.i as a test point TP. After step 30, then step 32 is executed and the cone size, that is, the maximum number of inputs of each sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j and the remaining cones, is recomputed. Next, step 34 is executed and a check is made to determine whether each sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j has no more than the desired number of inputs (w). If so, step 36 is executed and the partitioning of the cones 14.sub.1, 14.sub.2 . . . 14.sub.n is ended. Otherwise, program execution branches back to step 23 and those following it.
Note that, depending on the structure of each of the individual cones 14.sub.1, 14.sub.2 . . . 14.sub.n, there may indeed be one or more cones which already have less than w inputs. Thus, no partitioning of them is necessary. For ease of discussion, when we refer below to each sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j, each remaining one of the cones 14.sub.1, 14.sub.2 . . . 14.sub.n which has less than w inputs is included in the definition of a sub-cone.
Vector Assignment (Overview)
Following partitioning of the circuit 10 of FIG. 1, the next step in our testing method is to generate a set of test vectors which, when applied to each sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j, will exhaustively test it. A binary counting sequence of w column vectors, each of a length 2.sup.w, will exhaustively test an individual one of the sub-cones 14.sub.i.sbsb.j. (However, for reasons which will be explained later, testing of all the sub-cones in parallel with a set of 2.sup.w vectors may not always be possible.) Assuming, for simplicity purposes, that the maximum cone size w is 3, the starting point for generating the set of exhaustive test vectors is to establish a binary counting sequence from 0 to 7 and to establish a set of of column vectors, a.sub.1, a.sub.2, and a.sub.3, accordingly, each 2.sup.w (8) bits long.
The counting sequence of vectors {a.sub.1, a.sub.2 . . . a.sub.w } shown in Table I, is sufficient to exhaustively test a sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j of size w=3 independently.
However, as indicated previously, overlapping of the inputs of the sub-cones 14.sub.i.sbsb.a -14.sub.n.sbsb.x is common. Because of such overlapping, assigning separate vectors of the set {a.sub.1, a.sub.2, a.sub.3 . . . a.sub.w } to each input of each sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j (or alternatively, assigning the input to a vector) so that no sub-cone has two or more of its inputs supplied with the same vector is usually impossible. Thus, to exhaustively test all of the sub-cones in parallel, the vector set {a.sub.1, a.sub.2, a.sub.3 . . . a.sub.w } must be augmented with an additional set of vectors {b.sub.l, b.sub.2, b.sub.3 . . . b.sub.w }.
Each vector b.sub.i can be generated by taking the linear sum (modulo 2) of all but the i.sup.th one of the vectors a.sub.1, a.sub.2 . . . a.sub.w in accordance with the relationship:
In the given example where w=3, b.sub.1, b.sub.2 and b.sub.3 can be given as follows
The combined set of vectors {a.sub.1,a.sub.2 . . . a.sub.w, b.sub.1, b.sub.2 . . . b.sub.w } yields a plurality of subsets, each with no more than w elements, which can accomplish exhaustive testing of each sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j if the elements of the subset are linearly independent. A subset is linearly independent if any of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) the set has a single i pair of elements (e.g., it contains only one of the vector column pairs a.sub.i b.sub.i); or
(2) the subset has w elements and contains no i pairs (i.e, none of the column vector pairs a.sub.1 b.sub.1, a.sub.2 b.sub.2 . . . a.sub.w b.sub.w,) and the number of b.sub.i 's is even; or
(3) the subset of test vectors has less than w elements and no i pairs.
For purposes of explanation, the above rules are predicated on obtaining the vectors a.sub.1, a.sub.2 . . . a.sub.w, from the binary counting sequence. In practice, any exhaustive set may be substituted in place of the set a.sub.1, a.sub.2, a.sub.3 . . . a.sub.w.
Vector Assignment
In practice, assignment of selected ones of the vectors {a.sub.1, a.sub.2 . . . a.sub.w, b.sub.1, b.sub.2 . . . b.sub.w } to the inputs of the sub-cones 14.sub.i.sbsb.a -14.sub.n.sbsb.x is carried out by the process shown in flowchart form in FIG. 5. Referring to FIG. 5, the first step (step 56) in the process is to prioritize the inputs of each of the sub-cones 14.sub.1.sbsb.a -14.sub.n.sbsb.x. There are several ways in which priority can be assigned. For instance, the inputs can be randomly ordered. However, prioritizing the inputs by assigning the highest priority to those in the largest one of the sub-cones 14.sub.1.sbsb.a -14.sub.n.sbsb.x has been found to yield better results. Within each sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j, priority may be assigned in accordance with the degree to which the input "fans out" or is common to the inputs of other sub-cones.
Following step 56, step 58 is executed, and an attempt is made to find the first test vector for the highest priority input which satisfies the rules for linear independence given above. If, following the execution of step 58, a test vector is found, then program execution branches to step 60, at which time, the test vector assignment is stored and the input priority is reduced by unity so that upon subsequent execution of step 58, the next highest priority will be considered. After step 60, step 62 is executed and a check is made to determine whether all of the inputs have been assigned a vector. If not, program execution branches back to step 58. Otherwise, program execution branches to step 64 and a check is made whether the each sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j has been assigned an exhaustive vector. If so, then program execution ends (step 66).
Depending on which vectors have been previously assigned, a vector may not be available during step 58. If no vector is available for the particular input under consideration, then program execution branches to step 68. During execution of step 68, the vector assignments made previously are undone in the reverse order of the input priority until a valid assignment is found for the input under consideration. Once a valid assignment is found, program execution branches to step 58.
If no vector assignment is found possible during step 68, or if not all cones have been assigned exhaustive vectors during step 64, then step 70 is executed, and the size (number) of vectors is increased. For example, if the predetermined cone size (w) was established at twenty, so that the total number of vectors {a.sub.1, a.sub.2 . . . a.sub.w, b.sub.1, b.sub.2 . . . b.sub.w } is forty, then, during step 70, the number of vectors is increased, typically by two. After step 70, program execution branches to step 58.
Circuit 10 Hardware Modifications
Implementation of the above-described testing technique to render the circuit 10 of FIG. 1 self-testing requires certain modifications to the circuit itself. For example, the circuit 10 must be modified to include a generator for generating canonical test vectors for application to the sub-cones 14.sub.1.sbsb.a -14.sub.n.sbsb.x. Further, the circuit 10 must be modified so that the vectors can be presented to the inputs of all of the sub-cones 14.sub.1.sbsb.a -14.sub.n.sbsb.x and the response of the sub-cones to the vectors can be observed.
Test Generator 74
Referring to FIG. 6, there is shown a block schematic diagram of a vector generator 74 for inclusion within the circuit 10 of FIG. 1 for generating a set of canonical vectors a.sub.1, a.sub.2, a.sub.3 . . . a.sub.w and b.sub.1, b.sub.2, b.sub.3 . . . b.sub.n. The generator 74 is comprised of a Linear Feedback Shift Register (LFSR) 76 which is comprised of w individual flip-flops 78.sub.1, 78.sub.2, 78.sub.3 . . . 78.sub.w, w being the size (number of inputs) of the largest of the sub-cones. The flip-flops 78.sub.1, 78.sub.2, 78.sub.3 . . . 78.sub.w are daisy-chained together such that the output of the flip-flop 78.sub.1 feeds the flip-flop 78.sub.2 which, in turn, feeds the flip-flop 78.sub.3 and so on. The output of a subset of the flip-flops 78.sub.1, 78.sub.2, 78.sub.3 . . . 78.sub.w (selected so as to establish a primitive polynomial) is fed, via an exclusive OR (XOR) network 80, back into the flip-flop 78.sub.1. The LSFR 76, configured,as described, will generate the column vectors a.sub.1, a.sub.2, a.sub.3 . . . a.sub.w, with each separate column vector being produced by a corresponding one of the flip-flops 78.sub.1, 78.sub.2, 78.sub.3 . . . 78.sub.w, respectively.
To generate the vectors b.sub.1, b.sub.2, b.sub.3 . . . b.sub.w, the output of each of the flip-flops 78.sub.1, 78.sub.2, 78.sub.3 . . . 78.sub.w is supplied to a first of a pair of inputs of a separate one of a set of two-input exclusive OR (XOR) gates 82.sub.1, 82.sub.2, 82.sub.3 . . . 82.sub.w, respectively. The second input of each of the XOR gates 82.sub.1, 82.sub.2, 82.sub.3 . . . 82.sub.w is supplied with the output signal of a parity register 84 which is supplied at its input with the output signal of a two-input exclusive OR (XOR) gate 86. The XOR gate 86 is supplied at each of its inputs with the output signal of the XOR network 80 and the output of the flip-flop 78.sub.w, respectively. When the XOR gates 82.sub.1, 82.sub.2, 82.sub.3 . . . 82.sub.w are each supplied with the output of a separate one of the flip-flops 78.sub.1, 78.sub. 2, 78.sub.3 . . . 78.sub.w, respectively, and with the output of the parity register 84, each gate produces a separate one of the vectors b.sub.1, b.sub.2, b.sub.3 . . . b.sub.w, respectively.
Test Point Multiplexer 21
Referring to FIG. 7, there is shown a schematic diagram of the test point multiplexer 21 mentioned previously with respect to FIG. 3. As may be seen in FIG. 7, the test point multiplexer 21 has a pair of inputs (1,0), the first (1) being supplied with the signal (i.e., a test vector) at an input (TEST VECTOR IN), the other input (0) supplied with an input signal (I), which represents the output signal of one of the sub-cones 14.sub.1.sbsb.a -14.sub.n.sbsb.x. The test point multiplexer 21 is controlled by a control signal (TSEL) whose state determines whether the multiplexer passes the signal at its first or second input. Once the circuit 10 is partitioned into the sub-cones 14.sub.1.sbsb.a -14.sub.n.sbsb.x in the manner described with respect to FIG. 3, separate test point multiplexers 21 are each inserted into the circuit such that each has its second input (I) coupled to a corresponding test point (TP) (e.g., the node 20.sub.6 in FIG. 3) of a sub-cone which, in turn, feeds another sub-cone.
The purpose of inserting a test point multiplexer 21 at each node 20.sub.i selected as a test point is to allow the node to be "controlled," that is, to allow a test vector to be injected into the node. As described earlier with respect to FIG. 3, the inputs to sub-cones 14.sub.a.sbsb.1 -14.sub.n.sbsb.x obtained by partitioning the circuit 10 may not be controllable. The output of a sub,cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j (i.e., the signal appearing at a designated test point TP) may feed the input of at least one downstream sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j+1. By providing the test point multiplexer 21 at the designated test point TP, the output of the sub-cone can be isolated from the input of the downstream cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j+1, allowing the latter to be tested exhaustively.
PEST Flip-Flop 88
As may be appreciated from FIG. 1, when the circuit 10 is modeled in the manner shown, the output of each cone 14.sub.i serves as the input to a flip-flop 16.sub.i. Thus, when a cone 14.sub.i is partitioned, there will be at least one resulting sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j which will have its output supplied to the input of a flip-flop 16.sub.i. In order to observe the response of the sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j which feeds a particular flip-flop 16.sub.i as well as to enable self-testing of the flip-flops, each flip-flop 16.sub.i within each register 12.sub.i of FIG. 1 is replaced by a "Pseudo-Exhaustive Self-Test" (PEST) flip-flop system 88 of FIG. 8. As will be explained in greater detail below, the PEST flip-flop system 88 advantageously permits observance of the output of the sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j during testing, and yet provides the normal function of the flip-flop 16 during conventional operation of the circuit 10 of FIG. 1. As will be described later, those of the sub-cones 14.sub.i.sbsb.j -14.sub.i.sbsb.k (where k<x) which do not have their outputs coupled to a PEST flip-flop system 88, may share a PEST flip-flop system.
Referring to FIG. 8, the PEST flip-flop system 88 is comprised of a conventional D-type flip-flop 90, a first multiplexer 92, a second multiplexer 94 and an exclusive NOR (XNOR) gate 96. The flip-flop 90 has a data (D) and clock (CK) inputs and a Q and Q output. The CK input of the flip-flop 90 is supplied with a clock signal for triggering purposes while the data (D) input of the flip-flop is supplied with the output of the XNOR gate 96. The Q output of the flip-flop 90 is supplied to the multiplexer 92 whereas the Q output of the flip-flop (designated as the SCAN OUT output of the PEST flip-flop system 88) is coupled to the PEST flip-flop system (not shown) substituted within the register 12.sub.i of FIG. 1 for an adjacent flip-flop 16.sub.i+1.
The XNOR gate 96 has two inputs, the first of which is coupled to the output of a two-input NAND gate 98 which is supplied with a pair of signals DATA and CONTROL.sub.0. The signal DATA represents the input signal (from a cone 14.sub.i) which would otherwise be supplied to the flip-flop 16.sub.i of FIG. 1 (now replaced by the PEST flip-flop system 88). The signal CONTROL.sub.0 is one of a set of three control signals (the others being CONTROL.sub.1 and CONTROL.sub.2) generated by an external controller (not shown) which serves to control the operation of the PEST flip-flop system 88. The second input of the XNOR 96 gate is coupled to the output of the multiplexer 94 which is comprised of a pair of two-input AND gates 100 and 102, each having its output coupled to one of two inputs of a two-input NOR gate 104. The output of the NOR gate 104 serves as the output of the multiplexer 94.
The AND gate 100 is supplied at it first input with the control signal CONTROL.sub.1 and is coupled at a second input (designated as SCAN IN) to the output SCAN OUT signal of another of the PEST flip-flop systems (not shown). As may now be appreciated, the SCAN IN and SCAN OUT outputs of the PEST flip-flop system 88 provide the means by which each of the PEST flip-flop systems within a register 12.sub.i can be daisy-chained together. This allows the PEST flip-flop systems 88 to be self-tested using known scan techniques in a manner described later. The AND gate 102 of the multiplexer 94 is supplied at its first and second inputs with the control signal CONTROL.sub.2 and with the output of the multiplexer 92, respectively.
With the multiplexer 94 configured as described, either the inverse of the signal received at the SCAN IN input from the upstream PEST flip-flop system 88 (not shown), or the inverse of the output signal from the multiplexer 92, will be passed to the second input of the XNOR gate 96, depending on the state of each of the signals CONTROL.sub.1 and CONTROL.sub.2. The XNOR gate 96 exclusive OR's the output signal of the multiplexer 94 and the output signal of the NAND gate 98. In this way, the XNOR gate 96 can act to compact signals at the DATA input with those at the SCAN IN input. The state of the output signal of the XNOR gate 96 causes the flip-flop 90 to set the signal at its Q and Q outputs accordingly.
The multiplexer 92 is comprised of a pair of two-input OR gates 106 and 108, each having its output coupled to the input of a two-input NAND gate 110 whose output serves as the output of the multiplexer, which is coupled to the input of one of the sub-cones 14.sub.1.sbsb.a -14.sub.n.sbsb.x downstream of the register 12.sub.i containing the PEST flip-flop system 88. The OR gate 106 has its first input coupled to the input TEST VECTOR IN, which is supplied with a test vector generated by the generator 74 of FIG. 6. The second of the inputs of the OR gate 106 is coupled to the output of a NOT gate 111 which is supplied at its input with the control signal CONTROL.sub.1 so that the OR gate receives a signal the equivalent of CONTROL.sub.1. The OR gate 108 has its first input supplied with the signal CONTROL.sub.1 and has its second input supplied with the signal present at the Q output of the flip-flop 90. The multiplexer 92, configured as described, serves to pass either the inverse of the test vector received at the input TEST VECTOR IN or the inverse of the Q output of the flip-flop 90, to the output DATA OUT, depending on the state of the signal CONTROL.sub.1.
The operation of the PEST flip-flop system 88 is controlled by the status of the control signals CONTROL.sub.0, CONTROL.sub.1 and CONTROL.sub.2. Table III sets forth the logical relationship between the CONTROL.sub.0, CONTROL.sub.1 and CONTROL.sub.2 and the different modes of operation of the PEST flip-flop system 88.
The "CLEAR" mode of operation is established when the signals CONTROL.sub.0, CONTROL.sub.1 and CONTROL.sub.2 are each at a 0 logic level. This mode is entered into to set the PEST flip-flop system 88 to a logic 0 state. The CLEAR mode is entered at the beginning of testing to set the circuit 10 to a known state.
The "SCAN" mode of operation is established when the signals CONTROL.sub.0, CONTROL.sub.1 and CONTROL.sub.2 are at a 0, 1 and 0 level, respectively, and enables the inverse of the signal at the SCAN IN input, received from the upstream PEST flip-flop system 88, to be scanned into the flip-flop 90 of FIG. 8. There is no net inversion in the data being scanned through the PEST flip-flop system 88, however, because the SCAN OUT output is sourced by the Q output of the flip-flop 90. The SCAN mode can be entered to access the final "signature" (residue) in the flip-flop 90 for comparison with the expected value at the completion of testing.
When CONTROL.sub.0, CONTROL.sub.1 and CONTROL.sub.2 signals are each at a 0, 0 and 1 level, respectively, the "HOLD" mode is entered, causing the signal previously output at the Q output of the flip-flop 90 to be entered at its input. The HOLD mode of operation of the PEST flip-flop system 88 is entered into at the end of testing to retain the resulting signature (i.e., the residue in the flip-flop 90) until it can be accessed.
When the CONTROL.sub.0, CONTROL.sub.1 and CONTROL.sub.2 signals are each at a 1, 0 and 0 levels, respectively, the PEST flip-flop system 88 operates in its "NORMAL" mode. During the NORMAL mode of operation, the inverse of the signals at the DATA IN input are latched into the flip-flop 90. There is no net inversion in the data passing through the PEST flip-flop system 88. This is because the Q output signal of the flip-flop 90 gets inverted as it passes through the multiplexer 92 before appearing on the PEST flip-flop system 88 DATA OUT output. The NORMAL mode of the PEST flip-flop system 88 performs the same functions as the flip-flop 16 of FIG. 1.
The "TEST" mode of operation is entered into when the control signals CONTROL.sub.0, CONTROL.sub.1 and CONTROL.sub.2 are each at a 1, 1 and 0 level, respectively. During the TEST mode of operation, the inverse of the signal at the TEST VECTOR IN input, representing the separate one of the test vectors {a.sub.1, a.sub.2 . . . a.sub.w, b.sub.1, b.sub.2 . . . b.sub.w }, will be passed by the multiplexer 92 to the output DATA OUT for receipt at the input of the appropriate sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j of FIG. 2. Each element of the signal (test vector) at the TEST VECTOR IN input passed by the multiplexer 92 is inverted; however, such inversion will not affect the exhaustiveness of the testing. At the same time, the signal at the SCAN IN input, representing the output signal of the upstream PEST flip-flop system (not shown), is compacted (logically combined) by the XNOR gate 96 with the signal at the DATA IN, which, during testing, represents the response signal of an upstream sub-cone 14.sub. i.sbsb.j. The compacted signal, represented by the output of the XNOR gate 96, will be held by the flip-flop 90 for further compaction or for output during the SCAN mode at the completion of testing. Since the PEST flip-flop systems 88 are daisy-chained together, the combination of such flip-flop systems effectively forms a Multiple Input Shift Register (MISR) which serves to compact the test data.
Test Point Compactor 22
As described above, the PEST flip-flop system 88 advantageously allows observance and compacting of the response of the corresponding one of the sub-cones 14.sub.1.sbsb.a -14.sub.n.sbsb.x coupled to it. However, when the cones 14.sub.1 -14.sub.n are partitioned, there is likely to be at least one of the sub-cones 14.sub.1.sbsb.a -14.sub.n.sbsb.x which does not have its output directly coupled to a PEST flip-flop system 88. A separate PEST flip-flop system 88 could be provided for each sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j at the expense of additional circuitry.
To avoid the need for additional PEST flip-flop systems 88, each sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j not otherwise directly coupled to a PEST flip-flop system is provided with the test point compactor 22 described briefly above with respect to FIG. 3. The test point compactor 22 compacts the output of a sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j (i.e., the signal appearing at a test point TP or a primary chip output) with the signal at the SCAN OUT of a PEST flip-flop system 88, to generate a signal for input to the SCAN IN input of a downstream PEST flip-flop system.
Referring to FIG. 9, there is shown a block diagram of the test point compactor 22, which is comprised of a two-input multiplexer 112 whose first input (0) is coupled to the SCAN OUT output of an upstream PEST flip-flop system 88 (not shown). The second input of the multiplexer 112 is coupled to the output of a two-input exclusive OR gate 113 having its first input supplied with the signal at the SCAN OUT output of the upstream PEST flip-flop system. The second input of the XOR gate 113 is supplied with the signal at the test point TP of the sub-cone/primary output (not shown) feeding the test point compactor 22.
The multiplexer 112 is controlled by the signal CONTROL.sub.0. During the SCAN mode of operation of the PEST flip-flop system 88 of FIG. 8 (i.e., when the signal CONTROL.sub.0 is at a logic 0 level), the multiplexer 112 of FIG. 9 passes the signal at the SCAN OUT output of the upstream PEST flip-flop system (received at the multiplexer's "0" input) to the downstream PEST flip-flop system. During the TEST mode of operation (when the signal CONTROL.sub.0 is at a 1 level), the multiplexer 112 passes the output signal of the XOR gate 113 (which signal represents the compaction of the signal at the SCAN OUT output of the upstream PEST flip-flop system and the signal at the sub-cone output). In this way, the output of the sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j is passed to the downstream PEST flip-flop system 88.
Operation Overview
As may now be appreciated, pseudo-exhaustive self-testing of the cones 14.sub.1, 14.sub.2 . . . 14.sub.n is accomplished in accordance with the invention by first partitioning the cones into individual sub-cones as described with respect to FIG. 3. The vector generator 74 for generating the set of vectors {a.sub.1, a.sub.2 . . . a.sub.w, b.sub.1, b.sub.2 . . . b.sub.w } is added to the circuit 10. An exhaustive subset of the vectors is then assigned to each sub-cone 14.sub.i.sbsb.j in the manner described in FIG. 5. Each vector in the subset is applied, through a separate one of the PEST flip-flop systems 88 and through the test points, to a separate one of the inputs of the sub-cone, which, in turn, produces a response vector whose state is indicative of whether the sub-cone is operating properly.
The response produced by each sub-cone is received by another PEST flip-flop system 88 downstream of the one which launched the test vector into the sub-cone. The PEST flip-flop system 88 receiving the response vector compacts it with the response vector received by the PEST system flip-flop upstream therefrom. By compacting the response vectors in this manner, a reduced stream of vectors is obtained, thereby simplifying the diagnosis of the logic cones 14.sub.1, 14.sub.2 . . . 14.sub.n. The compacted stream of response vectors held by the PEST flip-flop systems 88 is then shifted out for subsequent analysis.
Each PEST flip-flop system 88 can be easily self-tested by toggling the state of the signals CONTROL.sub.0, CONTROL.sub.1 and CONTROL.sub.2 so a successive one of eight separate combinations of signals is received by the flip-flop system. By toggling the state of the signals CONTROL.sub.0, CONTROL.sub.1 and CONTROL.sub.2, any faults in the multiplexer 92, the multiplexer 94, the XNOR gate 96, or the flip-flop 90 will manifest themselves. Since the PEST flip-flop systems 88 are daisy-chained together, a fault which is present in any flip-flop will propagate itself through the chain, so that by monitoring the residue of the end flip-flop, a fault can be easily discovered.
The foregoing testing technique is described as being pseudo-exhaustive because the generated vectors assigned to each sub-cone achieve substantially exhaustive testing thereof. The testing technique is also described as being self-testing because the technique is typically carded out by the circuit 10 itself, after having been modified to include the vector generator 74 and a separate PEST flip-flop system 88 in place of each conventional flip-flop 16. No separate test equipment, other than a source for generating the signals CONTROL.sub.0, CONTROL.sub.1 and CONTROL.sub.2, is required in order to carry out the present testing technique.
It is to be understood that the above-described embodiments are merely illustrative of the principles of the invention. Various modifications and changes may be made thereto by those skilled in the art which will embody the principles of the invention and fall within the spirit and scope thereof.
Claims
We claim:
1. A method for pseudo-exhaustively testing a digital integrated circuit in which the combinational elements have been partitioned into sub-cones, each sub-cone having a single output and no more than a user-selected number (w) of inputs, each input having been pre-assigned to receive a particular one of a set of test vectors, the method comprising the steps of: exiting normal operations and entering a test mode; generating a set of w test vectors by the steps of: generating a binary counting sequence of w vectors, a.sub.1, a.sub.2 . . . a.sub.w, each vector being 2.sup.w bits in length; generating a second sequence of w vectors b.sub.1, b.sub.2 . . . b.sub.w, each generated in accordance with the relationship where b.sub.i represents a successive one of the second vectors and a.sub.i represents a successive one of the vectors in the binary counting sequence; grouping the vectors a.sub.1, a.sub.2 . . . a.sub.w and b.sub.1, b.sub.2 . . . b.sub.w into subsets such that each subset satisfies at least one of the following conditions: (1) the subset has a single pair of i elements (a.sub.i b.sub.i), (2) the subset has w elements but contains no i pairs and the number of b.sub.i 's is even, or (3) the subset has less than w elements and no i pairs; applying a separate vector of each subset of the generated test vectors to a pre-assigned input of a respective sub-cone to exhaustively test the sub-cone, each test vector of the subset, when applied to the correspondingly assigned input of the sub-cone, causing the sub-cone to generate a response in accordance with the applied test vector; successively compacting the responses produced by the sub-cones to yield a signature indicative of the operation of the circuit; and comparing the signature to a predetermined signature to establish whether the circuit is fault-free.
2. The method according to claim 1 wherein the response signals produced by sub-cones are successively compacted by exclusively OR-ing the response signal produced by one sub-cone with that of another sub-cone.
Patent Citations (1)
| Patent | Date | Inventor | Cited By |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPX164209 | 1985-12-01 |
Non-Patent Literature (14)
- IEEE Publication, "PEST, a Tool for Implementing Pseudo-Exhaustive Self-Test," by E. Wu, Proceedings of the IEEE 1990 Custom Integrated Circuits Conference, Boston, Mass., May 13-16, 1990, pp. 28.4.1-28.4.3.
- IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, "PRPG/MISR Circuit," pp. 11-13, IBM vol. 32, No. 2, Jul. 1989.
- C. S. Gloster and F. Brglez, "Boundary Scan with Built-In Self-Test," IEEE Design and Test of Computers, Feb. 1989, pp. 36-44.
- IEE Publication, "Use of Linearisation and Spectral Techniques in Input and Output Compaction Testing of Digital Networks," by S. L. Hurst, IEEE Proceedings E, Computers and Digital Techniques, vol. 136, Part E, No. 1, Jan., 1989, pp. 48-56, Stevenage, Herts., Great Britain.
- IEEE Publication, "Automated BIST for Sequential Logic Synthesis," by C. E. Stroud, IEEE Design & Test of Computers, vol. 5, No. 6+Index, Dec. 1988, pp. 22-29, New York, N.Y.
- L.-T. Wang, M. Marhoefer, and E. J. McCluskey, "A Self-Test and Self-Diagnosis Architecture for Boards Using Boundary Scans," Proc. 1st European Test Conf., Paris, Apr. 12-14, 1989, pp. 119-126.
- K. K. Saluja, R. Sharma, and C. R. Kime, "A Concurrent Testing Technique for Digital Circuits," IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design, vol. 7, No. 12, Dec. 1988, pp. 1250-1259.
- L.-T. Wang and E. J. McCluskey, "Circuits for Pseudoexhaustive Test Pattern Generation," IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design, vol. 7, No. 10 Oct. 1988, pp. 1068-1080.
- E. Wu, "Towards an Optimal Pseudo-Exhaustive Test Generation Algorithm," Conference Proceedings, Built-In Self-Test Workshop, IEEE Test Technology Committee, Mar. 23-25, 1988.
- IEE Publication, "Review of Built-In Test Methodologies and Gate Arrays", by K. A. E. Totton, IEE Proceedings I. Solid-State Electron Devices, vol. 132, Parts E and I, No. 2, Mar./Apr. 1985, pp. 121-129, Great Britain.
- S. B. Akers, "On the Use of Linear Sums in Exhaustive Testing," Proceedings, Fault Tolerant Computing Conference, pp. 148-153 (IEEE).
- M. W. Roberts and P. K. Lala, "An Algorithm for the partitioning of Logic Circuits," IEE Proceedings, vol. 131, Pt. E, No. 4, Jul. 1984, pp. 113-118.
- D. J. McCluskey, "Verification Testing--a Pseudoexhaustive Test Technique," IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. C-33, No. 6, Jun. 1984, pp. 541--545.
- E. J. McCluskey and S. Bozorgui-Nesbat, "Design for Autonomous Test," IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. C-30, No. 11, Nov. 1981, pp. 866-875.