Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adding LRES table for GF180MCU DRC #65

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 6, 2023
Merged

Conversation

FaragElsayed2
Copy link
Collaborator

Adding LRES table for GF180MCU DRC

Fixes #43

@mithro mithro assigned proppy and unassigned proppy Apr 3, 2023
@mithro mithro requested a review from proppy April 3, 2023 17:31
@atorkmabrains
Copy link
Collaborator

@proppy Looking forward to getting your feedback on all the PRs.

@atorkmabrains
Copy link
Collaborator

@proppy ?

@proppy
Copy link
Member

proppy commented Apr 4, 2023

@atorkmabrains can you review it first?

@atorkmabrains
Copy link
Collaborator

@proppy I have already reviewed and approved that code before. My concerns are different than yours. I always focus on 2 things:

  • Correctness of DRC
  • Performance of code against large designs.

All the code that you have here is already reviewed and approved multiple weeks before.

@proppy
Copy link
Member

proppy commented Apr 4, 2023

@atorkmabrains are you able to mark the PR as approved here?

Copy link
Collaborator

@atorkmabrains atorkmabrains left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@atorkmabrains
Copy link
Collaborator

@proppy Done

# limitations under the License.
################################################################################################

if FEOL
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#58 but not blocking


if FEOL
#================================================
#----------------N+ POLY RESISTOR----------------
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#57 but not blocking


if FEOL
#================================================
#----------------N+ POLY RESISTOR----------------
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#57 but not blocking

logger.info('Executing rule LRES.1')
lres1_l1 = lres_poly.width(0.8.um, euclidian)
lres1_l1.output('LRES.1', 'LRES.1 : Minimum width of Poly2 resistor. : 0.8µm')
lres1_l1.forget
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#53 but not blocking

logger.info('Executing rule LRES.1')
lres1_l1 = lres_poly.width(0.8.um, euclidian)
lres1_l1.output('LRES.1', 'LRES.1 : Minimum width of Poly2 resistor. : 0.8µm')
lres1_l1.forget
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#53 but not blocking

logger.info('Executing rule LRES.1')
lres1_l1 = lres_poly.width(0.8.um, euclidian)
lres1_l1.output('LRES.1', 'LRES.1 : Minimum width of Poly2 resistor. : 0.8µm')
lres1_l1.forget
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#53 but not blocking

## and both side (X and Y) are greater than 80um.
## then the minimum spacing to adjacent RES_MK layer. is 20µm
logger.info('Executing rule LRES.9b')
lres9b = res_mk.with_area(15_000.001.um, nil).edges.with_length(80.001.um, nil)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why do we have .001 here?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As the rule wording explains, greater than 15000 not greater than or equal.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what about using 15_000.um + 1.dbu instead? that seems less arbitrary than .001?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

filed #67 to discuss this further


# Rule LRES.3: Minimum space from Poly2 resistor to COMP.
logger.info('Executing rule LRES.3')
lres3_l1 = lres_poly.separation(comp, 0.6.um, euclidian).polygons(0.001.um).or(comp.not_outside(lres_poly))
Copy link
Member

@proppy proppy Apr 5, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why do we have .001 here?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All polygons(0.001.um) are for visibility and being able to join the results. But we can't remove that as we combine the layers down the line as well.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can you clarify what "All polygons(0.001.um) are for visibility" means? (or even better add a comment in the rule that explain that)

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When run any kind of spacing check, it generates edges rather than polygons. We convert them to polygons with with 0.001.um. This is what this does.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

and what is the reason we don't keep them as edges? is to be able to do or() on them or to be able to call output()?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@proppy exactly.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

would https://www.klayout.de/doc/code/class_EdgeProcessor.html#method43 also work here? what would be the trade off of using one versus the other?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We haven't used that method. Also, we don't know if it's exposed for usage in DRC or not. Keep in mind that some of those might not be exposed to be used in DRC. polygons has been tested significantly. It's fast and tested.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@proppy I don't mind that you could test out the function that you have highlighted above. If it's faster or better, happy to change. But if there is no impact, I recommend leaving polygons as is.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

filed #67 to discuss this further


# Rule LRES.5: Minimum Nplus implant overlap of Poly2 resistor. is 0.3µm
logger.info('Executing rule LRES.5')
lres5_l1 = lres_poly.enclosed(nplus, 0.3.um, euclidian).polygons(0.001.um)
Copy link
Member

@proppy proppy Apr 5, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why do we have .001 here?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

filed #66 to discuss this further

# Rule LRES.7: Space from salicide block to contact on Poly2 resistor.
logger.info('Executing rule LRES.7')
cont_lres7 = contact.and(lres_poly)
lres7_l1 = cont_lres7.separation(sab, 0.22.um).polygons(0.001.um)
Copy link
Member

@proppy proppy Apr 5, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why do we have .001 here?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

filed #66 to discuss this further

lres7_l2.forget
cont_lres7.forget

# Rule LRES.8 is not a DRC check
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#55 but not blocking

Copy link
Member

@proppy proppy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

just some nits and questions but nothing blocking per se, I'll leave it up to you if you want to address those in this PR or file separate issues to track them.

@atorkmabrains
Copy link
Collaborator

@proppy Are you using some form of automation to send those comments? I believe it seems that you are doing so. If yes, could you please enlighten me how you do that?

Also, are you doing some form of code scanners?

@proppy
Copy link
Member

proppy commented Apr 6, 2023

@proppy Are you using some form of automation to send those comments? I believe it seems that you are doing so. If yes, could you please enlighten me how you do that?

No, just way ETOOMANY many tabs open :)

Also, are you doing some form of code scanners?

My eyes and grep?

@proppy proppy merged commit 85a6957 into google:main Apr 6, 2023
@atorkmabrains atorkmabrains deleted the lres_google branch April 6, 2023 10:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Creating PRs for each DRC table separately
3 participants