comment on this article

Make it so

Should we even be talking about design for manufacture? By Paul Dempsey.

Given there is so much talk about design for manufacture in chip design circles right now, it’s hard to pin down anyone who actually likes the term. After all, shouldn’t DFM really stand for design for manufacturability and isn’t that just another way of saying design for yield?
But prepare yourself for another surprise. Whilst eda tool vendors may be investing millions in R&D, and launching and developing tools that rise to the DFM and DFY challenges, they don’t think that many need worry about buying them just yet. And when they do start marketing this software outside the power user community, their hope is the DFM elements will be invisible.
As Joe Sawicki, vice president and general manager of Mentor Graphics’ Design to Silicon division, puts it: “It is a fundamental belief of mine that if you can avoid giving the designer a DFM tool, that should be your absolutely highest priority.”
David Thon, group director for Cadence Design Systems’ Nanometer Analysis and Verification activities, makes another important point. “Ask yourself what process you’re designing for now. Is it 130nm? The research is clear that 130nm will still account for most design activity for next year and probably beyond. If you are at 130nm, then this isn’t an issue. If you are looking at 90nm, that’s yielding well, so it is not so much of a problem there either.”

Author
Paul Dempsey

Comment on this article


This material is protected by MA Business copyright See Terms and Conditions. One-off usage is permitted but bulk copying is not. For multiple copies contact the sales team.

What you think about this article:


Add your comments

Name
 
Email
 
Comments
 

Your comments/feedback may be edited prior to publishing. Not all entries will be published.
Please view our Terms and Conditions before leaving a comment.

Related Articles