DFM/DFY: should you trust the surgeon or the family doctor?

M. Casale-Rossi, A. Strojwas, R. Aitken, A. Domic, C. Guardiani, P. Magarshack, D. Pattullo, Joseph Sawicki
{"title":"DFM/DFY: should you trust the surgeon or the family doctor?","authors":"M. Casale-Rossi, A. Strojwas, R. Aitken, A. Domic, C. Guardiani, P. Magarshack, D. Pattullo, Joseph Sawicki","doi":"10.1109/DATE.2007.364631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Everybody agrees that curing DFM/DFY issues is of paramount importance at 65 nanometers and beyond. Unfortunately, there is disagreement about how and when to cure them. \"Surgeons\" suggest a GDSII-centered approach, potentially invasive, while \"family doctors\" recommend a more pervasive approach, starting from RTL. As in real life, \"surgery\" and \"medicine\" represent two different schools of thought in the DFM/DFY arena. Both involve risks.\n This panel will examine these two approaches from high-level design all the way to manufacturing. We have assembled a set of panelists that represent a broad cross-section of semiconductor industry. Although there is general agreement among the panelists that both approaches are necessary and that prevention is the best way to proceed, they also acknowledge that the surgery may be unavoidable in such \"hazardous\" conditions as state-of-the-art technologies.\n However, as always, \"the devil is in the details,\" and the diverse approaches to DFM presented below should make this panel quite interesting. We are also counting on the feedback from the IC design community to assess if these approaches are sufficient and practical enough to deal with the \"health hazards.\" We are looking forward to an exciting discussion that will challenge our esteemed panelists.","PeriodicalId":205976,"journal":{"name":"Design, Automation and Test in Europe","volume":"222 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Design, Automation and Test in Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/DATE.2007.364631","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Everybody agrees that curing DFM/DFY issues is of paramount importance at 65 nanometers and beyond. Unfortunately, there is disagreement about how and when to cure them. "Surgeons" suggest a GDSII-centered approach, potentially invasive, while "family doctors" recommend a more pervasive approach, starting from RTL. As in real life, "surgery" and "medicine" represent two different schools of thought in the DFM/DFY arena. Both involve risks. This panel will examine these two approaches from high-level design all the way to manufacturing. We have assembled a set of panelists that represent a broad cross-section of semiconductor industry. Although there is general agreement among the panelists that both approaches are necessary and that prevention is the best way to proceed, they also acknowledge that the surgery may be unavoidable in such "hazardous" conditions as state-of-the-art technologies. However, as always, "the devil is in the details," and the diverse approaches to DFM presented below should make this panel quite interesting. We are also counting on the feedback from the IC design community to assess if these approaches are sufficient and practical enough to deal with the "health hazards." We are looking forward to an exciting discussion that will challenge our esteemed panelists.
DFM/DFY:你应该相信外科医生还是家庭医生?
每个人都同意,在65纳米及以上的情况下,解决DFM/DFY问题至关重要。不幸的是,人们对如何以及何时治愈这些疾病存在分歧。“外科医生”建议以gdsii为中心的方法,可能具有侵入性,而“家庭医生”建议从RTL开始采用更普遍的方法。在现实生活中,“外科”和“医学”代表了DFM/DFY领域的两种不同的思想流派。两者都有风险。本小组将从高级设计一直到制造,研究这两种方法。我们召集了一组代表半导体行业广泛横截面的小组成员。虽然小组成员普遍认为这两种方法都是必要的,预防是最好的方法,但他们也承认,在最先进的技术这样的“危险”条件下,手术可能是不可避免的。然而,一如往常,“细节决定成败”,下面介绍的DFM的各种方法应该会使这个小组讨论非常有趣。我们也依靠IC设计界的反馈来评估这些方法是否足够和实用,足以应对“健康危害”。我们期待着一场激动人心的讨论,将挑战我们尊敬的小组成员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信