Abstract

Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) devices are integrated circuit chips which can be configured by the end user. FPGA architectures have evolved into heterogeneous System-on-Chips (SoCs) devices in order to meet the diverse market demands. Integrating reconfigurable fabrics in SOCs require an accurate estimation of the layout area of the reconfigurable fabrics in order to properly accommodate early floor-planning. Hence, this work provides an evaluation on the accuracy of the minimum width transistor area models in ranking the actual layout area of FPGA architectures. Both the original VPR area model and the new COFFE area model are compared against the actual layouts with up to 3 metal layers for the various FPGA building blocks. We found that both models have significant variations with respect to the accuracy of their predictions across the building blocks. In particular, the original VPR model overestimates the layout area of larger buffers, full adders and multiplexers by as much as 38% while underestimates the layout area of smaller buffers and multiplexers by as much as 58% for an overall prediction error variation of 96%. The newer COFFE model also significantly overestimates the layout area of full adders by 13% and underestimates the layout area of multiplexers by a maximum of 60% for a prediction error variation of 73%. Such variations are particularly significant considering sensitivity analyses are not routinely performed in FPGA architectural studies. Our results suggest that such analyses are extremely important in studies that employ the minimum width area models so the tolerance of the architectural conclusions against the prediction error variations can be quantified. This work proposes a more accurate active area model to estimate the layout area of FPGA multiplexers by considering diffusion sharing and folding. In addition, we found that comparing to the minimum width transistor area model, the traditional metal area based stick diagrams, in lieu of actual layout, can provide much more accurate layout area estimations. In particular, minimum width transistor area can underestimate the layout area of LUT multiplexers by as much as a factor of 2-3 while stick diagrams can achieve over 85% -95% percent accuracy in layout area estimation. Based on our work, we present correction factors to the commonly used FPGA building blocks, so their actual layout area can be used to achieve a highly accurate ranking of the implementation area of FPGA architectures built upon these layouts.

Highlights

  • FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) are widely used digital circuits to implement several applications in digital signal processing, video/audio processing, biomedical engineering and scientific computation

  • Both the original VPR area model and the new COFFE area model are compared against the actual layouts area of FPGA components designed using Magic and conventional stick diagrams area estimation technique

  • In this study we focus on the layout area of multiplexers, as they are one of the most widely used basic building blocks found throughout the FPGA architecture

Read more

Summary

Overview

FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) are widely used digital circuits to implement several applications in digital signal processing, video/audio processing, biomedical engineering and scientific computation. The minimum width transistor area model is widely used area model in many previous FPGA architectural studies [1][10], in estimating the implementation area of proposed FPGA architectures This model was originally introduced in the VPR tool as its area model and a modified version based on transistor sizing is used in COFFE. We found that, comparing to the minimum width transistor area models, the VPR model and the COFFE model, the traditional metal area based stick diagrams can provide much more accurate layout area estimations. We observed that there is a wide range of inconsistency against the predicted estimations across various FPGA components As both VPR and COFFE area models use generic area estimation equations for all components based on individual transistor count and the spacing between adjacent transistors, they consider neither circuit topology nor the actual connectivity of adjacent transistors. These layouts are skillfully designed best effort manual layout to achieve compact area with minimum white spaces

Related Works
Motivation
Research Objectives
Framework
Contributions
Dissertation Outline
Background
FPGA Architecture
Logic Block Architecture
Composable LUTs
Fracturable LUTs - Stratix II ALM
Clustered Logic Block
Importance of multiplexers
Routing Architecture
Switch Blocks
Connection Blocks
Survey on High Level Area Estimation tools used for FPGA Based Systems
Minimum Width Transistor Area
Stick Diagrams
Summary
Inverters
Buffers
Effect of folding on layout area
Effect of diffusion sharing and number of folds on layout area
Multistage Buffer
Tristate Buffers
Full adder
Part I –Active Area Modeling
Multiplexer
Active area modeling of 2:1 multiplexer
Diffusion sharing without transistor folding
Diffusion sharing with transistor folding
Number of folds
Active area estimation for larger multiplexers
Decoded Multiplexers
Part II – Layout of Multiplexers
Encoded Multiplexers
LUT 3 LUT
Decoded Multiplexer
Layout strategy for encoded and decoded multiplexers
Comparing mirroring strategy with row and column strategy suggested by VPR
LUT 2:1 Mux
Experimental Analysis and Results
Stick Diagram Comparison
Active Area Comparison
Selection of the number of metal layers for layout
Multiplexers based on 1x transistors
Effect of Transistor Size on the Consistency of Prediction Errors
Comparison of LUT multiplexer with Routing multiplexer
FPGA CMOS components
Future Research
Commonly used Design Rules
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.