US 6,360,352 B2Grant
Digital circuit layout techniques
Issue Date:2002-03-19
•20 Claims
•4 Drawing Sheets
Abstract
A technique for analyzing digital circuits to identify pin swaps is provided for circuit layout and similar tasks in which the circuit is first decomposed into fanout-free regions. Quasi-canonical forms or models of the fanout free region are created from which a swap structure is created so that pins swap groups can be identified.
Metadata
Inventor
- David E. Wallace
Application Information
Application Number:US 09/118,225
Filing Date:1998-07-17
Priority Date:1998-07-17
Art Unit:7
Classifications
IPC:
G06F 1750
Field of Search:
716 2
Patent Drawings (4 sheets)
Description
Background of the Invention
[0002] 1. Field of the Invention
[0003] This invention relates to techniques for converting representations of digital circuits, such as logic diagrams or schematics, into layouts for circuit implementation, and more specifically to the identification of logic input equivalences for controlling and optimizing circuit area and circuit delays during the layout process.
[0004] 2. Description of the Prior Art
[0005] Many very sophisticated logic synthesis and layout tools have been developed for producing circuit layouts from circuit and logic diagrams. One recent article, “Effective Coupling between Logic Synthesis and Layout Tools for Synthesis of Area and Speed-Efficient Circuits”, Chandrasekhar, McCharles and Wallace, published in VLSI DESIGN, 1997, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 125-140, co-authored by the inventor hereof, proposes coupling between logic synthesis and layout tools to improve post-layout circuit implementation.
[0006] As noted in that article, many circuits synthesized by automatic logic synthesis or other methods contain internal nodes at the outputs of logic gates that implement the same logic function and are therefore logically equivalent. Such nodes are considered output equivalent and techniques are provided for exploiting output equivalents during the layout of digital circuits. Similarly, input equivalence is demonstrated in logic circuits in which the output of an output gate does not change even if the circuit configuration is changed by interchanging the drivers connected to input gates feeding that output gate, as shown in FIG. 8 of that article.
[0007] Although techniques are provided for working with output equivalence, what are needed are techniques for identifying and exploiting input equivalences in the synthesis and layout of digital logic circuits.
Summary of the Invention
[0008] The present invention provides improved techniques for identifying input equivalence in digital circuits for use, for example, in swapping pins in order to modify circuit layout. These techniques include the steps of decomposing the circuit into one or more fanout-free regions (FFRs), generating quasi-canonical models to create a swap structure, identifying pin swap groups and swapping pins as desired for final layout or configuration.
[0009] The present invention proceeds by looking for extensible symmetric logic functions (such as AND, OR, and XOR functions) within and between gates in a logic circuit. Such functions are grown backwards as long as they can continue to be extended and then analyzed to identify input equivalences to identify permutable pins.
[0010] The present invention be conveniently implemented in a computer by coding appropriate software on computer coded media or by any other conventional means of programming a computer. The required software may be written by a person of ordinary skill in the art of developing programs for analyzing digital circuits for layout and similar operations.
[0011] In a first aspect, the present invention provides a method of analyzing a digital circuit to identify input equivalences by decomposing the digital circuit into one or more regions having a first set of specified characteristics, creating a modified circuit structure from the decomposed regions, and identifying pin swap groups within the modified circuit structure.
[0012] In another aspect, the present invention provides a method of analyzing a digital circuit to identify input equivalences by decomposing the digital circuit into one or more fanout-free regions, creating a quasi-canonical circuit structure from the fanout-free regions, and identifying pin swap groups within the circuit structure.
[0013] These and other features and advantages of this invention will become further apparent from the detailed description and accompanying figures that follow. In the figures and description, numerals indicate the various features of the invention, like numerals referring to like features throughout both the drawings and the description.
Brief Description of the Drawings
[0014] FIG. 1 is a logic schematic of a simple circuit exhibiting both input and output equivalence.
[0015] FIG. 2 is a logic schematic of a simple circuit demonstrating multi-gate, single pin (MGSP) equivalence.
[0016] FIG. 3 is a logic schematic of a simple circuit demonstrating multi-pin (MP) equivalence in which groups of two or more pins are found to be equivalent when swapped as a group.
[0017] FIG. 4 is a simple flow chart of the major steps of the operation of the present invention.
[0018] FIG. 5 is a logic schematic of a simple circuit illustrating the properties of fan out free regions.
[0019] FIG. 6 is a logic schematic of a more complicated circuit which will be analyzed in accordance with a present invention to permit pin swapping for region configuration of the final layout of the circuit.
[0020] FIG. 7 is a swap structure of the circuit shown in FIG. 6 based on the pin properties shown in table 4.
[0021] FIG. 8 is a logic schematic of a decomposed swap structure based on the swap structure of FIG. 6.
Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment(s)
[0022] Referring to FIG. 1, digital logic circuit 10 illustrates examples of both input and output equivalence. In digital logic circuit 10, two input XOR gates 12 and 14 are combined in two input XOR gate 16, the output of which is buffered in output buffers 18 and 20. The inputs to XOR gates 12 and 14 are said to exhibit input equivalence in that the output of two input XOR gate 16 does not change if any of the inputs to two input XOR gates 12 and 14 are interchanged. Similarly, the outputs of output buffers 18 and 20 are said to display output equivalence in that the outputs can be exchanged.
[0023] In particular, logic equivalence can be said to identify classes of permutable pins, such as input pins 22 and 24 of two input XOR gate 12 and input pins 26 and 28 of two input XOR gate 14 as well as output pins 30 and 32 of output buffers 18 and 20, respectively. That is, such pins can be swapped after placement and/or routing to reduce wire length, improve circuit timing, or reduce routing congestion.
[0024] In general, there are two types of logic equivalence: input equivalence, in which inputs to a sub-circuit (such as the inputs to a parity tree) are identified as permutable, and output equivalence, in which permutable output pins of a sub-circuit (such as the outputs of a buffer tree) are identified as permutable. In FIG. 1, input equivalence is said to be evidenced by permutable input pins 22, 24, 26 and 28 while output equivalence is said to be evidenced by permutable output pins 30 and 32.
[0025] Input equivalence is a property of pins, while output equivalence can be expressed either as a property of the output pins or of the nets that are driven by them. A given load driven by such a net can equally well be driven by any net that is output equivalent to it without changing the logical function of the circuit, as long as timing and fanout constraints are observed.
[0026] The present invention addresses the problem of recognizing input equivalence within a digital logic circuit such as digital logic circuit 10. In general, three types of input equivalence are considered:
[0027] 1) Single gate, single pin equivalences,
[0028] 2) Multi-gate, single pin equivalences, and
[0029] 3) Multi-pin equivalences (whether single or multi-gate).
[0030] Single gate, single pin equivalence consists of symmetric inputs to a single logic gate such as a three input NAND gate. Recognition and exploitation of such equivalence has been well-known for years.
[0031] Referring now to FIG. 2, circuit 34 is an example of multi-gate, single pin equivalence (MGSP). Two input OR gate 36 receives inputs 38 and 40 to produce output 42. Three input NAND Gate 44 receives inputs 46, 48 and 50 to produce output 52 which is applied, together with output 42 and input 54, to three input NOR gate 56 to produce output 58. Three input NAND gate produces output 62 from output 58 and inputs 64 and 66. In this circuit configuration, pins 38, 40, 52 and 54 form a first group of pins that are permutable, or swappable, while pins 46, 48, 50, 64 and 66 form a second group of permutable pins which may be freely exchanged.
[0032] There are some constraints which must be observed, one of which can be called a “Genealogical constraint”. For example, an input and output of the same logic function should not be swapped. Viewing a cone of logic as a family tree, a node must never be swapped with one of its ancestors or descendants.
[0033] Referring now to FIG. 3, circuit 62 is an example of multi-pin (MP) equivalence in which groups of 2 or more pins are found to be equivalent when swapped as a group. This may occur either on a single gate or across gates. In circuit 62, two input AND gates 64 and 66 receive inputs 68, 70, 72 and 74 and provide outputs 76 and 78, respectively, as inputs to a two input NOR gate 80. The output of the two input NOR gate 80 is applied as input 82 to a two input NAND gate 84. In a preferred physical embodiment of this circuit, gates 80, 64 and 66 are included in a single AND-OR-INVERT GATE, such as GATE 81. Similarly, inputs 86 and 88 are applied to a two input NAND gate 90 to produce output 92 applied as an input to a two input NAND gate 84 to produce circuit output 94.
[0034] In this example, input pair 68 and 70 can be swapped with input pair 72 and 74 as well as input pair 86 and 88. Note that this equivalence is based on single-pin equivalences involving the inaccessible or internal pins at the outputs of gates 64 and 66.
[0035] Multiple-gate equivalences, such as those shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, offer greater optimization opportunities during physical design than do single-gate equivalences. Proper exploitation of such multi-gate equivalences in physical design swapping of pins can be used to relieve layout problems including resolving problems in wire length, sharing of a single track to relieve density and rerouting of connections. Thus multi-gate pin swaps offer significantly greater opportunities to reduce wire lengths and avoid congestion than the single-gate swaps do.
[0036] Multi-gate equivalences also offer greater opportunities to fix timing problems, often discovered during physical design. Single-gate swaps can improve timing by a small amount, by switching a net from a slow pin to a slightly faster pin on the same gate. But multi-gate equivalences can eliminate entire levels of logic from the critical path.
[0037] For example, if a net attached to a particular pin was discovered to be much slower than expected (due to placement and routing effects), it could be swapped with a net attached to another pin in order to minimize levels of logic from the critical path. The wire-length reductions that are possible due to multi-gate swaps can also help fix timing problems, by reducing wire capacitance along the critical path.
[0038] In order to exploit such equivalences, it is necessary to be able to easily recognize input equivalence. Conventionally, input symmetries in a combinational logic function can be detected in several ways. To determine if a Boolean-function f( . . . ,x, y, . . . ) of several variables is symmetric in x and y, a canonical representation of the function (such as a truth table or a binary decision diagram (BDD)) can be built to determine if f( . . . ,x, y, . . .)=f( . . . ,y, x, . . . ). Similarly, symmetries ban be determined through analysis of the cofactors of the function.
[0039] A Boolean function f( . . . ,x, y, . . . ) of several variables is symmetric in x and y if and only if the cofactor with x=1 and y=0 is equal to the cofactor with x=0 and y=1. A variety of heuristic approaches to minimize the effort required in such a computation is described in the literature by Möller, Mohnke and Weber in an article entitled “Detection of Symmetry of Boolean Functions Represented by ROBDDs” published in Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD93), Santa Clara, Calif. November 1993, pp. 680-684.
[0040] What these approaches have in common is that they detect symmetries along a fixed input boundary. This is perfectly acceptable for applications where such a boundary is given, such as detecting single-pin symmetries in a single gate, or detecting symmetries among the primary inputs of a logic network. But such a limitation makes it difficult to recognize the very desirable, large multi-gate symmetries, such as those shown in FIGS. 2 and 3. Such symmetries will be detected if an input boundary is chosen that passes through the pins in question, but there are an exponentially increasing number of such boundaries as the point of analysis is moved backwards through a circuit.
[0041] In contrast, the present invention focuses on the recognition of large multi-gate input equivalences in a combinational logic circuit. Rather than examining a fixed input boundary, the present invention proceeds by looking for extensible symmetric logic functions (such as AND, OR, and XOR functions) within and between gates in a logic circuit. Such functions are grown backwards as long as they can continue to be extended.
[0042] A key idea in understanding the approach of the present invention is that of a disjoint-support decomposition of a Boolean function. This concept recently been the subject of key theoretical work by Damiani and Bertacco in the following two articles: Damiani and Bertacco, “the disjunctive decomposition of logic functions”, International Workshop on Logic Synthesis, Tahoe City, Calif., May 1997, Session 8 and Bertacco and Damiani, “Boolean function representation based on disjoint-support decompositions,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Design, October 1996.
[0043] The articles by Damiani and Bertacco teach that every completely-specified Boolean function F has a ds-prime decomposition (defined below) that is unique up to negation and permutation of inputs to the various functions in the decomposition. An effective method to compute a ds-prime decomposition from a binary decision diagram (BDD) representing the function is disclosed.
[0044] For example, let F be a completely-specified Boolean function of several variables, F(a1, a2, a3, . . . , an). The support of F is the set of input variables on which F depends. Thus aiis in the support of F if it is an input variable of F such that there is some setting of the remaining variables for which F(a1, . . . , ai−1, 0, ai+1, . . . an)≠F(a1, . . . , ai−1, 1, ai+1, . . . an).
[0045] The support of F may be written SF. If F is decomposed into sub-functions, F=G(A(a1, a2, . . . , aA), B(aA+1, aA+2, . . . aB), . . . ), then its support is generally taken to be the union of the supports of all the sub-functions, assuming non-redundancy. Two functions are disjoint-support if the intersection of their supports is the null set. A decomposition F=G(A, B, . . . ) is a disjoint-support decomposition if all of the sub-functions A, B, . . . are pair-wise disjoint-support. These sub-functions may likewise be decomposed into disjoint-support functions, etc.
[0046] A Boolean function F may be said to be ds-prime if no disjoint-support decomposition into simpler functions exists. Examples of ds-prime functions are MUX(a,b,s) and MAJORITY(a,b,c). A ds-prime decomposition of a Boolean function F is a recursive disjoint-support decomposition such that each function of two or more variables in the decomposition is either a maximally-wide AND, OR, or XOR, or a ds-prime function.
[0047] Referring now to FIG. 4, in accordance with the present invention, input equivalence recognition is accomplished and used in five primary steps. The circuit is first decomposed into fanout-free regions in step 96, quasi-canonical models for the logic gates are then generated in step 98, these quasi-canonical models are composited to create a “swap structure” in step 100, the swap structures are analyzed to identify pin swap groups in step 102 and the pins are then swapped in step 104.
[0048] Referring now to FIG. 5, circuit 96 is used as a simple example to help define fan-free regions which are used to help simplify the generation of input equivalences. Circuit 96 includes three inputs, two separate and one common input applied to a pair of inputs gates 106 and 108, the outputs of which are applied to the inputs of a third gate 110, output 112 of which may be fanned to a plurality of other logic gates and destinations.
[0049] A fanout-free region has the following properties:
[0050] 1. It is headed by a single gate in the circuit, which may fan out to multiple places.
[0051] 2. All other gates are members of the region if they have only one fanout, and this fanout is also a member of the region.
[0052] 3. Input nets to the region may fan out to multiple input pins in the region.
[0053] A logic circuit describable by logic circuit diagram 96 qualifies as a fanout-free region in that it is headed by a single output gate, gate 110, the output 112 of which may fanout to multiple places. The other gates in the region, gates 106 and 108, have only one fanout or output which is applied to gate 110 within the region. The input nets to the region may fan out to multiple input pins in the region, that is, the four inputs to gates 106 and 108 are provided by three separate inputs.
[0054] These rules permit equivalences for gates within the region to be generated without being concerned about the surrounding circuitry. Because there is only one point of observability (at output 112 of head gate 110 of circuit region 96), any transformation of the netlist, that is swapping of the pins, within region 96 that leaves the logic function generated by the head gate 110 unchanged can not affect the rest of the circuit. Each input pin to the region 96 is treated as a distinct input variable, even though multiple pins may be driven by a single input net to the region.
[0055] It is therefore not necessary to consider logical relationships between the input pins of the region. As a result of this treatment, plus the restriction of internal gates to a single fanout, gates 106, 108 and 110 of region 96 comprise a decomposition of the function computed at the head gate 110.
[0056] A fanout-free region (FFR) is a set of one or more combinational gates in a logic circuit, one of which may be distinguished as the head gate. Each combinational gate in the circuit is a member of exactly one fanout-free region. A combinational gate in a logic circuit is the head of a fanout-free region if either it has more than one fanout or it has a single fanout that is a primary output of the circuit or a non-combinational gate in the circuit.
[0057] Note that the number of fanouts is computed over all the fanouts of a gate. Thus a combinational gate with more than one output (such as a combined buffer-inverter cell) would have more than one fanout, unless all but one output was left unconnected in the circuit. A combinational gate that has a single fanout that is also a combinational gate is a member of the same fanout-free region of the gate that it fans out to.
[0058] A combinational gate with no fanouts is normally a circuit error. Normally all such gates would be removed from the circuit before fanout-free regions are generated. However, if it is desirable to make the algorithm work even in the presence of such errors, it is possible to treat such gates as belonging to a special fanout-free region that is not otherwise processed for logic equivalence. Such a region would not have a head gate, i.e. head=NULL.
[0059] Under these definitions, the combinational gates of the circuit are partitioned into the fanout-free regions and are purely combinational gates. Fanout-free regions can be extended to include combinational sub-functions of non-combinational gates. One example is a multiplexed flip-flop or MUXDFF which is a combinational MUX with a sequential flip-flop.
[0060] Two recursive algorithms for identifying fanout-free regions follow naturally from these definitions. Algorithm no. 1 works forwards in the circuit, labeling the gates as they are encountered. The presently preferred algorithm is algorithm no. 2 which works backwards identifying gates that are the head of the regions, and then collecting the remaining gates in that region.
[0061] The following pseudo-code outlines are intended as examples of the type of algorithms that can be prepared for analyzing circuits to identify fanout free regions. Explanations of the functions in each code sequence are provided following the pseudo-code description for each algorithm.
[0062] Algorithm 1
[0063] For each gate G in the circuit:
[0064] If G is combinational, add_gate_to_ffr(G, find_ffrl(G))
[0065] End
[0066] find_ffrl(G);
[0067] If G is labeled, return lable(G); EndIf
[0068] If G has one fanout and fanout(G) is combinational,
[0069] /* G is a member, but not the head of the FFR */
[0070] Then region_label=find_ffrl(fanout(G))
[0071] Else If G has no fanouts,
[0072] / * Error case—Omit if circuit has no such gates */
[0073] Then region_label=NULL,
[0074] Else region_label=name(G);
[0075] EndIf
[0076] /* G is the head of a new region */
[0077] Lable G with region_label;
[0078] Return region_label;
[0079] The following explanation is intended to further enhance the largely self-explanatory function names in the pseudo-code above.
[0080] “add_gate_to_ffr(gate) region_label)” adds the designated gate to the fanout-free region designated by region_label” in a data structure identifying all of the gates in each region (either a list of lists of gates, or a hash table of indexed by the “region_label”, returning a list of gates in that region).
[0081] “label(G)” returns the label (if any) attached to gate G.
[0082] “name(G)” returns the unique name of gate G (which will be used as a region_label).
[0083] “fanout(G)” returns the unique gate that G fans out to (assuming that G has only one fanout).
[0084] Algorithm 2
[0085] For each gate G in the circuit:
[0086] If G is combinational
[0087] Then If G has >1 fanouts or fanout(G) is not combinational
[0088] /* G is head of new region */
[0089] ffr=new_ffr(name(G));
[0090] add_gate_to_ffr_with_fanins(G, ffr); add_ffr_to_ffrset(ffr);
[0091] Else If G has no fanouts
[0092] /* Error Case */
[0093] ffr=new_ffr(NULL);
[0094] add_gate to_ffr_with_fanins(G, ffr);
[0095] add_ffr_to_ffrset(ffr);
[0096] EndIf /* Skip gates that are not heads of regions */
[0097] EndIf
[0098] End
[0099] add_gate to_ffr_with_fanins(G, ffr)
[0100] add_gate_to_ffr2(G, ffr);
[0101] For each fanin G1 of G;
[0102] If G1 is combinational and has 1 fanout /* G */
[0103] / * Gate is part of region (Def 3) * /
[0104] add_gate to_ffr_with_fanins(G1, fir);
[0105] EndIf
[0106] End
[0107] The following explanation is intended to further enhance the largely self-explanatory function names in the pseudo-code above.
[0108] “new_ffr” creates a new, empty FFR with the given name.
[0109] “add_gate_to_ffr2” adds the given gate to the specified FFR.
[0110] “Add_ffr_to_ffrset” adds the completed FFR to the set of all FFRs (hash table or list of lists this Corresponds to the data structure built by add_gate_to_ffr in Algorithm 1.
[0111] The next tasks required are to discover maximally large symmetric functions (AND, OR, XOR) within this decomposition because the inputs to such a symmetric function can then be rotated freely without affecting the rest of the region. One exception to this is that such rotations can affect the genealogical constraints in some circumstances.
[0112] This approach does miss possible swaps that span fanout-free regions or that depend on the logical relations between inputs to a region. One example of this is an inverter/MUX combination that implements an XOR function. Such swaps could be detected by analyzing a ds-prime decomposition of the region's function, generated by the algorithm described by Damiani and Bertacco as discussed above.
[0113] Once a fanout-free region netlist, or other type of circuit description, is generated, it is necessary to transform the netlist into a quasi-canonical form, defined in more detail herein below.
[0114] Many conventional synthesis tools, such as Autologic II from Mentor Graphics, and Leonardo from Exemplar Logic, use netlists of primitive gates to model the functionality of an ASIC library gate. These primitive gates include functions such as AND, OR, XOR, NAND, NOR, NOT, BUF, MUX, etc. The set of primitives is rich enough that most ASIC library cells are typically represented with a netlist that constitutes a recursive disjoint support decomposition of the cell function, although this is not guaranteed. If such a representation is not available (e.g., for FPGA lookup tables), it could be generated using a ds-prime decomposition algorithm.
[0115] A fanout-free netlist of primitives (and if not fanout-free, it can be made fanout-free by replicating sections that fan out), can be transformed into a quasi-canonical form (QCF) by moving inverters through AND/OR/XOR functional units, merging adjacent AND/OR/XOR primitives of the same type, and sorting fan-ins. As the name suggests, such a form is not guaranteed to be canonical, but most disjoint-support representations of common ASIC gates will lead to the same result. Indeed, the unique ds-prime decomposition theorem suggests that starting from a disjoint support network, the results will differ only in the ordering and negation of inputs to nodes other than AND/OR/XOR, and in the possible decomposition of such nodes if they are not ds-prime functions.
[0116] The QCFs for both the true and complemented versions of the logic function are computed the first time any library cell is encountered in a input-equivalence computation. These are then stored on the cell for easy reference the next time that cell is encountered.
[0117] The conversion of a netlist for fanout-free region into quasi-canonical form requires control load inverter placement, the merging of adjacent nodes, and the sorting of inputs.
[0118] To standardize the placement of inverters within a quasi-canonical form, the following rules may be used:
[0119] 1. All instances of NAND, NOR, or XNOR primitives are replaced by AND, OR, or XOR, respectively, followed by an inverter.
[0120] 2. An inverter at the input of an XOR function is moved forwards through the function to its output.
[0121] 3. An inverter at the output of an AND or OR function is moved backwards through the function to all its inputs (and the function is then converted to the opposite type), using DeMorgan's Law. In the event that both this and the XOR movement rule apply, the XOR rule takes priority.
[0122] 4. Two consecutive inverters cancel.
[0123] These rules for inverter placement are designed to ensure that the movement of inverters is not ambiguous, and to maximize the chances of being able to merge identical functions after inverter movement.
[0124] Merging of adjacent nodes may be controlled as follows. If two functions are the same function from {AND, OR, XOR} and one of them is an input to the other, the two functions are merged into a larger function.
[0125] The inputs to the functions AND, OR and XOR are sorted in the following manner: sub-functions (including NOT) come before pins. Pins are sorted alphabetically within themselves. Sub-functions are represented as a list, with the first element being the function name, and subsequent elements being the inputs to the function (already sorted). Sub-functions are sorted lexicographically, sorting first on the name of the function, and then comparing element by element.
[0126] These steps should ensure that the resulting quasi-canonical form is consistent for a wide variety of initial models. For example, a 3-input NOR gate with inputs a, b, and c will generate a QCF of: (AND (NOT a) (NOT b) (NOT c)), regardless of whether the initial model was a single NOR primitive, an OR followed by an inverter, two 2-input ORs followed by an inverter, an AND preceded by input inverters, or many other forms.
[0127] QCFs are generated by recursive descent from each output port of the library gate, for both true and complemented forms of the output function. Although the above steps are presented separately to explain them more clearly, the actual coding for a working embodiment may conveniently overlap all three operations.
[0128] The composition of QCFs from different logic gates follows much the same rules as generation of the QCFs in the first place. The goal is to propagate inversions through AND, OR, and XOR functions in the composed structure, and to merge similar functions together into a larger function. It is desirable to explicitly keep track of gate pins, their polarities, and ancestry relationships, so that the inherent symmetries of the composed “swap structure” to generate swap groups among the pins.
[0129] In this swap structure, several properties of the pins are tracked:
[0130] 1. The polarity of the pin: i.e. whether inverted or non-inverted,
[0131] 2. Whether the pin is an external gate pin or an internal point within a single gate function,
[0132] 3. Whether the pin (if external) fans out to more than one point within the QCF of its gate (only used points count here, so unconnected output pins do not contribute to this fanout).
[0133] 4. The parent pin (if any) within the same level of the swap structure.
[0134] 5. The input function, if not from the same level of the swap structure.
[0135] 6. The gate and pin name cross references, for external pins.
[0136] The swap structure is built up by a quasi-breadth-first search from the root gate of the FFR. The non-inverted QCF of the root gate is used; subsequent gates supply either the non-inverted or inverted QCFs depending on the polarity of the external pin they connect to within the swap structure. As each gate is processed, the appropriate QCF is merged into the existing swap structure. External pins without multiple fanouts that connect to AND/OR/XOR functions in the swap structure are candidates for extension of that function.
[0137] If the appropriate QCF of the driving gate has the same function at its head, it will be merged with the function at that level of the swap structure. If the QCF has a buffer or inverter at the head, the inverter propagation rules will be applied before merging. If the QCF is only a buffer/inverter, the input pin will definitely be merged. Otherwise, the QCF will be incorporated as one or more separate swap structure functions.
[0138] Referring now to FIG. 6, circuit 114 is shown in a schematic form. The gate components and interconnection of the gates of circuit 114 will be described first, the pin properties for an initial swap structure will then be shown in Table 1, and the resulting swap structure will then be described in with reference to FIG. 7.
[0139] Three input NAND gate G1 is the head gate of the fanout free region shown in circuit 114 and provides circuit output 116. Input A of gate G1 at pin P1 is provided by the output of two input NAND gate G2. Input A of gate G2 is provided at pin P 15. Input B of gate G2 is provided at pin P 16 by the output of three input AND gate G8. Inputs A, B, and C of gate G8 are provided by pins P17, P18 and P19, respectively.
[0140] Input B of gate G1 is provided at pin P2 by the output AND-OR-INVERT gate G3. This gate computes the function (NOT (OR (AND AB) (AND CD))), where inputs A, B, C, and D are provided by pins P20, P21, P22 and P23, respectively. For convenience, internal points of the gate computing the sub-functions (AND A B) and (AND C D) are labeled P4 and P5, respectively. These internal points need not correspond to any action points in the physical implementation of gate 63.
[0141] Input C of gate G1 is provided at pin P3 by the output of three input NOR gate G4. Input A of gate G4 is provided by the output of two input NOR gate G5. Input A of gate G5 is provided at pin P9 while input B of gate G5 is provided at pin P10. Input B of gate G4 is provided at pin P7 by the output of inverting buffer G6, the input of which is provided at P11 by the output of two input multiplexer G9. Input A gate G9 is provided at pin P24 while input B of gate G9 is provided at input pin P25. Multiplexing input S is provided pin P26.
[0142] Input C of gate G4 is provided by the output of three input NAND gate G7, inputs A, B and C of which are provided at pins P12, P13 and P14 respectively.
[0143] The algorithm starts with gate G1. Since this is the initial gate, the positive QCF: (OR (NOT A) (NOT B) (NOT C))is used to build the initial function of the swap structure, an OR with pins 1, 2, 3. The initial values of the pin properties are shown in the following Table.
| TABLE 1 |
|---|
| Pin Properties for Initial Swap Structure |
[0144] Next the external pins of the function are expanded in order, until there are no more pins to expand. Expansion consists of looking at the driving cell for that pin (if part of the same FFR) and incorporating the QCF of that cell into the swap structure. In an actual implementation, pin IDs are typically only unique within a single function of the swap structure. For ease of explanation, every pin shown in these figures is given a unique ID.
[0145] The first pin to be expanded is pin P1. Since this is an inverted pin, the negative QCF of G2: (AND A B) is used. Since AND is different from OR, no merge takes place, and the AND is introduced as a separate function. The pin values now are:
| TABLE 2 |
|---|
| Pin Properties after expanding Pin 1 |
[0146] Because function 2 is a separate function, it is not necessary to keep track of the parent pin ID for pins 15 or 16: this is only used to track the genealogical relationships within a single function in the swap structure. The next pin to be expanded is pin 2. This too is an inverted pin, so the inverted QCF of G3: (OR (AND A B) (AND C D)) is used. The OR function does match the current function, so this top-level function is merged into the current function, producing the pin property shown in Table 3.
| TABLE 3 |
|---|
| Pin Properties after expanding Pin 3 |
[0147] Referring now to FIG. 7, after all the external pins have been expanded for all functions, the resulting pin properties are as shown in Table 4.
| TABLE 4 |
|---|
| Pin Properties after expanding all Pins |
[0148] As shown in FIG. 7, the pin properties listed in Table 4 represents a swap structure or simplified circuit, such as swap structure or circuit 120, which can then be analyzed further to recognize pin swapping possibilities.
[0149] In particular, swap structure 120 provides output signal 116 as the output of 14 pin, non-inverting OR gate 118 which provides function F1 listed in Table 4. The input to pin P1 of gate 118 is provided by the output of five input, non-inverting AND gate 122, the inputs o f which are provided by pins P15, P16, P17, P18 and P19. Gate 122 provides function F1 shown in Table 4. The input to pin P4 of gate 118 is provided by the output of two input non-inverting AND gate 124 which provides function F3 in Table 4. The inputs to gate 124 are provided by pins P20 and P21. The input to pin P5 of gate 118 is provided by the output of two input AND gate 126 which provides the function F4 in Table 4. The inputs to gate 126 are provided by pins P22 and P23.
[0150] In summary, the present technique recognizes multi-gate input equivalences by building up a swap structure from the original netlist:
[0151] 1. which computes the same function as the original netlist,
[0152] 2. which contains points that are identified with the external input pins of gates in that netlist, but
[0153] 3. which express the AND, OR, and XOR symmetries that were present in the original netlist in the form of large functional blocks.
[0154] The next step is to extract the swap groups from this swap structure. It may be noted that there is a close relationship between the swap structure as constructed above and a ds-prime decomposition of the function. In fact, the example swap structure is a ds-prime decomposition with some additional information added (such as the gate pins that are only used internally to the AND or OR functions). This will not always be the case, due to the limited set of primitives and the occasional reconvergent fanout in the internal logic model of a gate, but the two will generally be quite close. It is expected that an extended ds-prime decomposition could be used as the basis for an input equivalence recognition algorithm.
[0155] The swap structure of Table 4 may be analyzed to identify both multi-gate single-pin swaps (MGSP) and multi-pin swaps (MP). The single-gate single-pin swaps (SGSP) are identified using conventional BDD-based methods.
[0156] The MGSP swaps can be read almost directly out of the swap structure based on the following observation. If two external pins are both inputs to the same (OR, AND or XOR) functional block in the swap structure, do not have multiple fanouts, have the same parity, and are not in an ancestor-descendent relationship with each other, then the inputs to those two pins may be swapped without changing the function computed at the output of that functional block.
[0157] In particular, if independent input cones to the two points in question within the swap structure are identified by decomposing those parts of the function in question that fan in to the two points, these two input cones become identical (same parity) inputs of a symmetric function.
[0158] Accordingly, if these two input cones are swapped, the resultant swap structure computes the same function at the output of the functional block, and therefore (since these input cones fan out nowhere else), computes the same function at the output of the entire FFR.
[0159] Referring now to FIG. 8, an example of a decomposed swap structure is shown as circuit 130, justifying the swap of pin 2 of FIG. 7 with any of pins 12-14. In particular, the outputs of AND gate 124 and AND gate 126 at pins P4 and P5 are applied to a two input OR gate 132, the output of which is applied to pin P2.
[0160] Therefore the basic approach to generating MGSP equivalences is to collect all the external pins of the same polarity that are inputs to the same AND, OR, or XOR function in a swap structure, and then filter out multiple fanout pins and those with possible ancestor-descendent relationships. The manner in which the latter must be done depends on the capabilities of the client for this information. If the client is capable of recognizing ancestor-descendent conflicts, then it is possible to output the entire group of pins with the same polarity, and leave it up to the client to deal with.
[0161] A more conservative approach is to only use those pins that are not the parent of any other pin in the function output. This ensures that there are no ancestor-descendent relationships among the pins in the group that is output, and subsequent swaps within this group will not change this fact. It is possible to suppress the group if the remaining pins belong to only one gate, such as SGSP equivalences.
[0162] The above MGSP swaps do not include internal points such as pins 4 and 5 as shown in FIG. 7 and Table 4, which are not the external pins of some gate. Because all swaps must ultimately be expressed as swaps of external pins, the input function is evaluated to determine if it can be matched with the input function of some other pin (internal or external).
[0163] Accordingly, MP swaps are generated by looking for internal pins input to an AND, OR or XOR function in the swap structure, expanding the input function to this pin until it consists entirely of external gate pins, and then looking for a match among the input functions to other pins in the same swap function.
[0164] In general, this process may need to be repeated recursively, as an input pin of a potential match might itself be an internal pin of some gate, in which case the input function to this pin must be incorporated to look for a match with the original function, etc. However, most of the potential MP matches are to the internal point of an OR gate. This process can be simplified by only looking for 1-level matches: if a potential match includes an internal point, it is simply skipped. To facilitate this, a “signature” for the top-level gate is recomputed in each swap function, which includes the function, the number of inputs to the top-level gate, and the inversion pattern of the inputs to this gate. Matches are identified by matching this signature.
[0165] In the example swap structure 130 shown in FIG. 8, the MP swap process will start with either pin P4 or P5, identify this pin as an internal pin, and look at the signature of the top-level gate of the input function. Next other inputs to the OR structure that are fed by input functions with identical signatures are identified to find pins P1, P4 and P5. This yields a MP swap group with elements: (P15, P16), (P20, P21), and (P22, P23).
[0166] Field-programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) could benefit from an approach like this even more than Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), since routing resources are often very restricted in FPGAs. An approach tailored to FPGAs would take advantage of the ability to modify the logic function of any particular gate more or less freely, especially for lookup-table (LUT) based devices. The following modifications are required:
[0167] 1. LUTs may not have pre-defined logic models in netlist form. For example, the Damiani/Bertacco algorithm could be used to generate a ds-prime decomposition for an arbitrary LUT used as the starting point for QCF generation.
[0168] 2. In interpreting the swap structure, the technique is not constrained to only swap between pins with the same polarity, since the logic function of the gate can be freely changed to introduce or delete inversions (at least for LUT-based FPGAs). Accordingly, larger swap groups will be generated that include both polarities, and require the client application performing the swaps to modify the polarity of the input pins appropriately.
[0169] Having now described the invention in accordance with the requirements of the patent statutes, those skilled in this art will understand how to make changes and modifications in the present invention to meet their specific requirements or conditions. Such changes and modifications may be made without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention as set forth in the following claims. In particular, the characteristics of a fan-out free region, the quasi-canonical form and the swap structure may be varied from implementation without departing from the spirit or scope of the present invention as long as they provide for determining and exploiting input equivalence.
Claims
What is claimed is:
1. A method comprising:
decomposing an input circuit having logic gates into one or more fanout-free regions;
generating one or more quasi-canonical models for logic gates of the one or more fanout-free regions;
generating a swap structure from the one or more quasi-canonical models to identify symmetric structures;
analyzing the swap structure to identify pin swap groups of input pins; and
swapping one or more input pins to create an equivalent input circuit.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein decomposing the circuit into one of more fanout-free regions further comprises:
identifying the region of the circuit headed by a single gate which may fanout to multiple places;
identifying all other gates to be members of the region if the other gates have only one fanout which is itself a member of the region; and
including input nets within the region which fanout to multiple input pins within the region.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein creating a swap structure further comprises building a swap structure from a digital circuit that computes an equivalent function as the digital circuit and contains points that are identified with external pins of gates in the digital circuit.
4. The method of claim 3 wherein generating a swap structure from the one or more quasi-canonical models to identify symmetric structures further comprises avoiding input rotations to the inputs of symmetric functions which affect genealogical constraints.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein avoiding input rotations which affect genealogical constraints further comprises avoiding the swapping of input and output pins of the same logic function.
6. The method of claim 1 in which identifying pin swap groups within the swap structure further comprises extracting swap groups from the swap structure.
7. The method of claim 6 in which extracting swap groups from the swap structure further comprises recognizing multi-gate input equivalences and/or multi-pin swaps.
8. The method of claim 7 in which recognizing multi-gate input equivalences further comprises identifying two external pins which are both inputs to the same functional block in the swap structure and which do not have multiple fanout.
9. The method of claim 8 wherein identifying the external pins further comprises avoiding input pins of common polarity which are in an ancestor-descendent relationship with each other.
10. The method of claim 7 in which recognizing multi-pin swaps further comprises:
identifying pins input to a large functional block in the swap structure;
expanding an input function associated with each pin until it consists entirely of external gate pins; and
searching for a match among input functions to other external gate pins in the same swap structure.
11. An article comprising a machine-readable medium having stored thereon sequences of instructions that, when executed, cause one or more electronic devices to:
decompose an input circuit having logic gates into one or more fanout-free regions;
generate one or more quasi-canonical models for logic gates of the one or more fanout-free regions;
generate a swap structure from the one or more quasi-canonical models to identify symmetric structures;
analyze the swap structure to identify pin swap groups of input pins; and
swap one or more input pins to create an equivalent input circuit.
12. The article of claim 11 wherein the sequences of instructions that cause the one or more electronic devices to decompose the circuit into one of more fanout-free regions further comprises sequences of instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more electronic devices to:
identify the region of the circuit headed by a single gate which may fanout to multiple places;
identify all other gates to be members of the region if the other gates have only one fanout which is itself a member of the region; and
include input nets within the region which fanout to multiple input pins within the region.
13. The article of claim 11 wherein the sequences of instructions that cause the one or more electronic devices to create a swap structure further comprises sequences of instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more electronic devices to build a swap structure from a digital circuit that computes an equivalent function as the digital circuit and contains points that are identified with external pins of gates in the digital circuit.
14. The article of claim 13 wherein generating a swap structure from the one or more quasi-canonical models to identify symmetric structures further comprises avoiding input rotations to the inputs of symmetric functions which affect genealogical constraints.
15. The article of claim 14 wherein avoiding input rotations which affect genealogical constraints further comprises avoiding the swapping of input and output pins of the same logic function.
16. The article of claim 11 in which identifying pin swap groups within the swap structure further comprises extracting swap groups from the swap structure.
17. The article of claim 16 in which extracting swap groups from the swap structure further comprises recognizing multi-gate input equivalences and/or multi-pin swaps.
18. The article of claim 17 in which recognizing multi-gate input equivalences further comprises identifying two external pins which are both inputs to the same functional block in the swap structure and which do not have multiple fanout.
19. The article of claim 18 wherein identifying the external pins further comprises avoiding input pins of common polarity which are in an ancestor-descendent relationship with each other.
20. The article of claim 17 in which recognizing multi-pin swaps further comprises:
identifying pins input to a large functional block in the swap structure;
expanding an input function associated with each pin until it consists entirely of external gate pins; and
searching for a match among input functions to other external gate pins in the same swap structure.
Patent Citations (7)
| Patent | Date | Inventor | Cited By |
|---|---|---|---|
| US5349659(A) | 1994-09-01 | Do et al. | Examiner |
| US5448497(A) | 1995-09-01 | Ashar et al. | Examiner |
| US5524082(A) | 1996-06-01 | Horstmann et al. | Examiner |
| US5526276(A) | 1996-06-01 | Cox et al. | Examiner |
| US5774369(A) | 1998-06-01 | Horstmann et al. | Examiner |
| US6023566(A) | 2000-02-01 | Belkhale et al. | Examiner |
| US6212669(B1) | 2001-04-01 | Jain | Examiner |
Non-Patent Literature (15)
- H. Selvaraj et al., Decomposition Strategies and Their Performance in FPGA Technology Mapping, Eleventh International Conference on VLSI Design, pp. 388-393, Jan. 1998.Applicant
- V. Bertacco et al., Boolean Function Representation Based on Disjoint-Support Decompositions, 1996 IEEE International Conference on Computer Design, pp. 27-32, Oct. 1996.Applicant
- M.S. Chandrasekhar et al., Application of Term Rewriting Techniques to Hardware Design Verification, 24th ACM/IEEE Conference Proceedings on Design Automation Conference, pp. 277-282, Jun. 1987.Applicant
- M.A. Perkowski et al., Fast Minimization of Mixed-Polarity AND/XOR Canonical Networks, IEEE 1992 Conference on Computer Design, pp. 33-36, Oct. 1992.Applicant
- J. Cong et al., Exploiting Signal Flow and Logic Dependency in Standard Cell Placement, 1995 Design Automation conference, pp. 399-404, Aug. 1995.Applicant
- Mandalagiri S. Chandrasekhar, Robert H. McCharles and David E. Wallace, “Effective Coupling between Logic Synthesis and Layout Tools for Synthesis of Area and Speed-Efficient Circuits”, VLSI Design, 1997, vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 125-140.Applicant
- D. Brasen, T. Schaefer, A. Ginetti, S. Chu, Compass Design Automation, “Post-Placement Buffer Reoptimization”, 1992 IEEE, pp. 156-161.Applicant
- Valeria Bertacco & Maurizio Damiani, “Boolean Function Representation Based on Disjoint-Support Decompositions”, ICCD96, Oct. 1996, pp. 27-32, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA.Applicant
- Valeria Bertacco & Maurizio Damiani, “The Disjunctive Decomposition of Logic Functions”, ICCD97, Nov. 1997, pp. 78-82, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA.Applicant
- S-C. Chang, K-T. Cheng, N-S. WOO & M. Marek-Sadowska, “Layout Driven Logic Synthesis for FPGAs”, DAC94, Jun. 1994, pp. 308-313.Applicant
- P. Chong, Y. Jiang, S. Khatri, S. Sinha & R. Brayton, “Don't Care Wires in Logical/Physical Design”, International Workshop on Logical Synthesis (IWLSOO), Nov. 1, 1999, pp. 1-9.Applicant
- Luis Entrena & Kwang-Ting Cheng, “Sequential Logic Optimization By Redundancy Addition And Removal”, ICCAD93, Nov. 1993, pp. 310-315, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA.Applicant
- Hans T. Heineken & Wojciech Maly, “Interconnect Yield Model for Manufacturability Prediction in Synthesis of Standard Cell Based Designs”, ICCAD96, Nov. 1996, pp. 368-373, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA.Applicant
- Yusuke Matsunaga, “An Exact and Efficient Algorithm for Disjunctive Decomposition”, SASIMI98, Oct. 1998, pp. 44-50.Applicant
- Dirk Moller, Janett Mohnke & Michael Weber, “Detection of Symmetry of Boolean Functions Represented by ROBDDs”, ICCAD93, Nov. 1993, pp. 680-684, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA.Applicant