首页> 外文会议>Conference on Design for Manufacturability through Design-Process integration >Cost-Performance Tradeoff between Design and Manufacturing: DfM or MfD ?
【24h】

Cost-Performance Tradeoff between Design and Manufacturing: DfM or MfD ?

机译:设计与制造之间的成本-性能折衷:DfM还是MfD?

获取原文

摘要

Design, CAD, and manufacturing are focused on optimizing translation methodology from electrical design to physical layout, and finally to mask data. The general goal is to improve integrated circuit (IC) functionality, reliability, manufacturability, testability, etc., using Design-for-X-ability (DfX) rules. Among those, the key role is played by DfM which is most directly related to the yield and therefore, the profit. A lot of pressure is being put on design to improve their understanding of all technology implementation issues, such that the mask pattern generated out of design layout would be "correct by construction" and comply with all of them. One can expect that such DfM-compliant layout should require significant effort to create, and its salient features would include: Manhattan geometries, and restricted grid for critical geometries, such as poly gates, large enclosures of the active area in the corners of implant layers, complete symmetry and proximity of the matched devices on all masking levels, minimal amount of jogs even for the complex features, neat alignment of source and drain contacts, line ends of gates and interconnects, doubled contacts and vias, etc. The question is if the cost of following all these practices at design time is not higher than that of other design improvement options. One alternative approach is to automatically adjust the "draft" layout using CAD post-processing such that all geometries would be optimized to conform to the DfM rules. Another approach to the DfM methodology is to improve the manufacturing capabilities such that the process tools would be able to achieve high yield for a layout which conforms only to some basic set of rules. This approach becomes even more relevant when the product line tries to address only selected DfM issues to improve die performance where it is most needed. We discussed the layout flow charts to determine the best approach, depending on the direct cost of the solution, the wafer volume, product time to market, and the risks involved.
机译:设计,CAD和制造专注于优化从电气设计到物理布局的最终​​翻译方法,最后是掩盖数据。总的目标是使用X容量设计(DfX)规则来改善集成电路(IC)的功能,可靠性,可制造性,可测试性等。其中,DfM扮演着关键角色,而DfM则直接关系到收益,因此也关系到利润。为了提高他们对所有技术实现问题的理解,设计上承受了很大的压力,从而使从设计布局中生成的掩模图案可以“通过构造进行校正”并符合所有这些要求。可以预料到,这种符合DfM的布局将需要大量的精力来创建,其显着特征包括:曼哈顿几何形状,以及用于关键几何形状的受限网格,例如多晶硅门,植入物层角部有效区域的大型围护结构,匹配的器件在所有掩蔽级别上完全对称和接近,即使对于复杂的功能也可实现最小的点动,源极和漏极触点的整齐对齐,栅极和互连的线端,触点和通孔加倍等。在设计时遵循所有这些实践的成本并不比其他设计改进选项的成本高。一种替代方法是使用CAD后处理自动调整“草稿”布局,以便优化所有几何形状以符合DfM规则。 DfM方法的另一种方法是提高制造能力,使得工艺工具能够针对仅符合一些基本规则的布局实现高产量。当产品线试图仅解决选定的DfM问题以在最需要的地方改善管芯性能时,这种方法就变得尤为重要。我们讨论了布局流程图,以确定最佳方法,具体取决于解决方案的直接成本,晶圆数量,产品上市时间以及所涉及的风险。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号