By Ron Craig
My wife is very understanding. Once every four years I become somehow distracted for 90 minute periods over the course of about a month, unresponsive to the most basic requests and occasionally straining to explain the minutiae of the offside trap, the beauty of the ‘nutmeg,’ the tactics of the three game group stage and why the flag didn’t go up because the left back on the edge of the six-yard box wasn’t actually interfering with play. If you aren’t with me by this point let me explain that I’m talking about the World Cup, the celebration of the beautiful game (football or soccer, depending on your origins), which is played once every four years between countries from around the world.

The World Cup, which is contested at the national rather than club level, is for me more interesting to watch than club games. At the league level, especially in Europe, successful teams amass budgets that allow them to collect the best players. This results in an often-predictable pattern of the largest teams seeing success at the expense of the less well-funded teams, resulting in games which often seem to lack any real sense of excitement. I wonder where I’ve seen that situation before?

Being a spectator is more fun when you have a basic understanding of the game, and football/soccer is no different in that respect from any other sport. Armed with a basic understanding of the patterns of play, you can often feel the highlights coming—which adds to the excitement. Simple statements such as ‘it’s four on two’ (where the members of the attacking team on the break outnumber defenders by four to two) are a hint that it’s not a good time to help empty the dishwasher.

At DAC this year, careful planning allowed me to take in 1.5 World Cup games per day before breakfast. Favorites trembled and underdogs delivered upsets on an almost daily basis, and the World Cup delivered a comparable level of intrigue. With every World Cup we see new directives from FIFA, the world governing body, about what’s acceptable and what’s not during the game. Attempts have been made to stamp out tackles from behind, play-acting and dissent over the last ten years or so, in an effort to make the game flow better and create a more enjoyable experience for the spectator.

When it comes to bad tackles, the player encouraging it is often blamed as much as the player committing it. This is the origin of the term ‘the hospital pass.’ In short, a ‘hospital pass’ is one where you pass the ball to a player who is being rapidly approached by a player from the opposite team. This almost invariably leads to a hard tackle, and often an injury which may take the player receiving the pass out of the game. The player delivering the original pass didn’t necessarily cause the problem directly, but he did create the circumstances for it to happen.

Chip design teams, despite careful planning, do this all the time. Netlists are handed off with hidden problems which regularly make life very difficult for the receiver. Customers I’ve worked with have seen a range of issues kill their chips, from missing synchronizers to incorrect timing exceptions. Unfortunately for chip design teams, you can’t simply outlaw the ‘hard tackle’ that kills your chip, but you can avoid the circumstances that allowed the problem to surface in the first place. Maybe it’s time to make those passes really count.

–Ron Craig is senior marketing manager at Atrenta.

By Ron Craig

I live in a reasonably remote area—defined as more than 10 miles from the nearest Starbucks. Given that I spend a fair amount of time driving, I’m conscious of things like safety and mileage. One thing that has a big impact on both is the health of my tires, and after having a recent replacement set installed I noticed that my ‘local’ tire shop offered things like regular re-inflation, pressure checking, etc. As tempting an offer as this may be, it struck me that there’s somehow something not right in driving more than 15 miles to have the pressure of my tires checked. Wouldn’t it instead make more sense to check them myself before I even emerge from my driveway, avoiding the risks associated with low pressure or bad wear before they really become a problem and prevent me from even reaching the tire shop?

A similar thought came to mind recently as I reviewed the results of a user survey on timing constraints, focused on how they are handled and the issues they cause. Across design teams in more than 30 companies worldwide, it was surprising to see that although more than 90% of engineers admitted regular problems with timing constraints (resulting in tapeout slips and even silicon failure), 70% simply resolved to try harder the next time around and keep using the techniques which were clearly failing them up to this point. It’s also interesting to note that roughly 70% of users rely on their existing back-end tools to point out any mistakes in their timing constraints. They put trust in these tools like I could put trust in my tire shop, but this means putting up with considerable (often undetected) risk on the way there.

The solution in my case is to use a reliable, hand-held tire pressure gauge coupled with some visual inspection. But is there a ‘hand-held pressure gauge’ for timing constraints? Even if there is, there’s a paradox to overcome – the engineer who writes the RTL code is the one who best understands how it should be constrained but doesn’t understand the complexities of timing constraints, whilst the engineer who takes on the role of timing constraints ‘guru’ is so far removed from the original design process that he doesn’t understand the design well enough to constrain it. So perhaps the problem isn’t one of technology at all; maybe this is all about how we allow users to access the technology.

Let’s look at the car maintenance analogy again. I definitely don’t want to take on responsibility for alignment, balancing and the whole host of other things that allow me to get the best (and safest) use of my tires. It is reasonable, however, for me to take on a little responsibility like pressure checking. In the chip design world, this kind of limited empowerment can definitely help RTL designers and engineers at the front end of the implementation process develop something that’s much less likely to turn into a problem further down the road.

Constraints checks should be built into existing customer verification regressions and they shouldn’t add much overhead for the design team. Bad constraints need to be identified and fixed at the source, rather than being used to drive expensive back-end tools. That reduces iterations, avoids tapeout slips, and everyone can sleep better knowing that there are no hidden ‘surprises’ in their timing constraints.

So if I told you that a handheld tire pressure gauge could avoid potential problems many of orders of magnitude more expensive than the cost of the gauge itself – wouldn’t you be crazy not to use one?

Ron Craig is senior marketing manager at Atrenta.