Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Overview: Testability Evaluation Outline Quality Policy of Electronic Design Tradeoffs of Design for Testability.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CMP238: Projeto e Teste de Sistemas VLSI Marcelo Lubaszewski Aula 4 - Teste PPGC - UFRGS 2005/I.
Advertisements

Digital Integrated Circuits© Prentice Hall 1995 Design Methodologies Design for Test.
MEMORY BIST by: Saeid Hashemi Mehrdad Falakparvaz
Copyright 2001, Agrawal & BushnellLecture 12: DFT and Scan1 VLSI Testing Lecture 10: DFT and Scan n Definitions n Ad-hoc methods n Scan design  Design.
Design for Testability (DfT)
Copyright 2001, Agrawal & BushnellVLSI Test: Lecture 261 Lecture 26 Logic BIST Architectures n Motivation n Built-in Logic Block Observer (BILBO) n Test.
Leonardo da Vinci ALLEGRO © J. M. Martins Ferreira - University of Porto (FEUP / DEEC)1 Scan design techniques J. M. Martins Ferreira FEUP / DEEC - Rua.
1 Chapter Design For Testability The Scan-Path Technique The testing problems with sequential circuit can be overcome by two properties: 1.The.
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA DESIGN FOR TESTABILITY Raimund Ubar
1 Analyzing Reconvergent Fanouts in Gate Delay Fault Simulation Dept. of ECE, Auburn University Auburn, AL Hillary Grimes & Vishwani D. Agrawal.
LEONARDO INSIGHT II / TAP-MM ASTEP - Basic Test Concepts © J. M. Martins Ferreira - University of Porto (FEUP / DEEC)1 Basic test concepts J. M. Martins.
Copyright 2005, Agrawal & BushnellVLSI Test: Lecture 21alt1 Lecture 21alt BIST -- Built-In Self-Test (Alternative to Lectures 25, 26 and 27) n Definition.
Copyright 2001, Agrawal & BushnellVLSI Test: Lecture 91 Lecture 9 Combinational Automatic Test-Pattern Generation (ATPG) Basics n Algorithms and representations.
X-Compaction Itamar Feldman. Before we begin… Let’s talk about some DFT history: Design For Testability (DFT) has been around since the 1960s. The technology.
Design for Testability Theory and Practice Lecture 11: BIST
ELEN 468 Lecture 241 ELEN 468 Advanced Logic Design Lecture 24 Design for Testability.
Lecture 6 Testability Measures
Embedded Systems Hardware:
1 Oct 24-26, 2006 ITC'06 Fault Coverage Estimation for Non-Random Functional Input Sequences Soumitra Bose Intel Corporation, Design Technology, Folsom,
1 Introduction VLSI Testing. 2 Overview First digital products (mid 1940's) Complexity:low MTTF:hours Cost:high Present day products (mid 1980's) Complexity:high.
Copyright 2001, Agrawal & BushnellVLSI Test: Lecture 81 Lecture 8 Testability Measures n Origins n Controllability and observability n SCOAP measures 
Embedded Systems Hardware: Storage Elements; Finite State Machines; Sequential Logic.
Design for Testability
4/26/05 Kantipudi: ELEC CONTROLLABILITY AND OBSERVABILITY KALYANA R KANTIPUDI VLSI TESTING ’05 TERM PAPER TERM PAPER.
Design for Testability
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Overview: Fault Simulation Overview about methods Low (gate) level methods Parallel fault simulation Deductive fault.
Testimise projekteerimine: Labor 2 BIST Optimization
VLSI Testing Lecture 7: Combinational ATPG
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA 1 Boolean derivatives Calculation of the Boolean derivative: Given:
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Component level dy Defect mapping Hierarchical Test Generation x1x1 x2x2 x3x3 x4x4 x5x5 System level WdWd Logic level.
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Copyright by Raimund Ubar 1 Raimund Ubar Tallinn Technical University D&T Laboratory Estonia Hierarchical.
Modern VLSI Design 3e: Chapter 5,6 Copyright  2002 Prentice Hall PTR Adapted by Yunsi Fei Topics n Sequential machine (§5.2, §5.3) n FSM construction.
Unit I Testing and Fault Modelling
10/14/2015 Based on text by S. Mourad "Priciples of Electronic Systems" Digital Testing: Testability Measures.
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA 1 Faults in Circuits and Fault Diagnosis 0110 T FaultF 5 located Fault table Test experiment Test generation.
Logic BIST Logic BIST.
Design for Testability By Dr. Amin Danial Asham. References An Introduction to Logic Circuit Testing.
ECE 553: TESTING AND TESTABLE DESIGN OF DIGITAL SYSTEMS
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Overview about Testing of Digital Systems 0110 T Fault table Test generation Fault simulation Fault modeling.
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Introduction: The Problem is Money? Cost of testing Quality Cost of quality Cost Cost of the fault 100% 0% Optimum.
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Copyright by Raimund Ubar 1 Raimund Ubar Tallinn Technical University D&T Laboratory Estonia Hierarchical.
ECE 553: TESTING AND TESTABLE DESIGN OF DIGITAL SYSTEMS
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Copyright by Raimund Ubar 1 Raimund Ubar Tallinn Technical University D&T Laboratory Estonia Test Generation.
Copyright 2001, Agrawal & BushnellLecture 6: Sequential ATPG1 VLSI Testing Lecture 6: Sequential ATPG n Problem of sequential circuit ATPG n Time-frame.
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA 1 Overview: Fault Modelling Faults, errors and defects Stuck-at-faults (SAF) Fault equivalence and fault dominance.
TOPIC : Controllability and Observability
2. Sissejuhatus teooriasse
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Copyright by Raimund Ubar 1 Raimund Ubar N.Mazurova, J.Smahtina, E.Orasson, J.Raik Tallinn Technical University.
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Test generation Gate-level methods  Functional testing: universal test sets  Structural test generation  Path.
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Component level dy Defect mapping Hierarchical Test Generation x1x1 x2x2 x3x3 x4x4 x5x5 System level WdWd Logic level.
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA 1 Raimund Ubar TTÜ Tallinn, 21. mai 2003 Kuidas tagada kvaliteeti üha keerukamates.
Silicon Programming--Testing1 Completing a successful project (introduction) Design for testability.
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Copyright by Raimund Ubar 1 Raimund Ubar Tallinn Technical University D&T Laboratory Estonia Hierarchical.
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Overview: Fault Simulation Overview about methods Low (gate) level methods Parallel fault simulation Deductive fault.
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA 1 Raimund Ubar TTÜ Tallinn, 21. mai 2003 Hästitestitavad ja isetestivad digitaalsüsteemid.
Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Overview: Fault Simulation Overview about methods Low (gate) level methods Parallel fault simulation Deductive fault.
Research in ATI © Raimund Ubar 4. High-Level Decision Diagrams Overview and examples Register Transfer Level circuits Microprocessors Methods of synthesis.
Faults in Circuits and Fault Diagnosis
Generalization of BDDs
Algorithms and representations Structural vs. functional test
VLSI Testing Lecture 14: Built-In Self-Test
Design for Testability
Defect and High Level Fault Modeling in Digital Systems
Overview: Fault Diagnosis
VLSI Testing Lecture 8: Sequential ATPG
Sungho Kang Yonsei University
Aiman H. El-Maleh Sadiq M. Sait Syed Z. Shazli
Design for Testability
Automatic Test Pattern Generation
Sungho Kang Yonsei University
Presentation transcript:

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Overview: Testability Evaluation Outline Quality Policy of Electronic Design Tradeoffs of Design for Testability Testability measures Heuristic measures Probabilistic measures Calculation of testability Parker - Mc Cluskey method Cutting method Conditional probabilities based method

© Raimund Ubar Quality Policy Yield 2 For example 60%, other chips are faulty Testimine Defect level means: How many chips from hundred escape? Chips from manufactory

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Introduction: The Problem is Money? Cost of testing Quality Cost of quality Cost Cost of the fault 100% 0% Optimum test / quality How to succeed? Try too hard! How to fail? Try too hard! (From American Wisdom) Conclusion: “The problem of testing can only be contained not solved” T.Williams Test coverage function Time

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Design for Testability The problem is - QUALITY: Quality policy Yield (Y) P,n Defect level (DL) P a Design for testability Testing P - probability of a defect n - number of defects P a - probability of accepting a bad product - probability of producing a good product

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Design for Testability The problem is - QUALITY: Quality policy Yield (Y) P,n Defect level (DL) P a n - number of defects m - number of faults tested P - probability of a defect P a - probability of accepting a bad product T - test coverage

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Design for Testability The problem is - Money: Y(%) T(%) Goal: DL   T   Testability  Paradox: Testability   DL  (Y  ) DL T(%) YY

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Design for Testability Tradeoffs: DFT: Resynthesis or adding extra hardware Performance  Logic complexity  Area  Number of I/O  Power consumption  Yield  Economic tradeoff: C (Design + Test) < C (Design) + C (Test) Goal: DL   T   Testability  Paradox: Testability   DL  (Y  )

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Design for Testability Economic tradeoff: C (Design + Test) < C (Design) + C (Test) C (DFT) + C (Test’) < C (Design) + C (Test) C (DFT) = ( C D + Δ C D ) + Q ( C P + Δ C P ) Design Product Test generation Testing Troubleshooting Volume C (Test) = C TGEN + (C APLIC + (1 - Y) C TS ) Q

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Testability Criteria Qualitative criteria for Design for testability: Testing cost: –Test generation time –Test application time –Fault coverage –Test storage cost (test length) –Availability of Automatic Test Equipment The cost of re-design for testability: –Performance degradation –Area overhead –I/O pin demand

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Testability of Design Types General important relationships:  T (Sequential logic) < T (Combinational logic) Solutions: Scan-Path design strategy  T (Control logic) < T (Data path) Solutions: Data-Flow design, Scan-Path design strategies  T (Random logic) < T (Structured logic) Solutions: Bus-oriented design, Core-oriented design  T (Asynchronous design) < T (Synchronous design)

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Testability of Design Types T (Sequential logic) < T (Combinational logic Combinationa l circuit IN OUT R q q’ Combination al circuit IN OUT R Scan-IN Scan-OUT q q’ Solution: Scan-Path design strategy

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Testability of Design Types T (Control logic) < T (Data path) Solutions: Scan-Path design strategie Data-Flow design

© Raimund Ubar 13 How to test million transistors? Scan-Path Based Testing Multi Site Test ATE H.-J.Wunderlich, U Stuttgart All memory components are made “transparent” via shift registers Test patterns Response Test System Fault

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Testability of Design Types T (Random logic) < T (Structured logic) Solutions: Bus-oriented design, Core-oriented design System 16 bit counter & 1 Sequence of 2 16 bits Sea of gates Random logic, structure is hidden

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Testability Estimation Rules of Thumb Circuits less controllable Decoders Circuits with feedback Counters Clock generators Oscillators Self-timing circuits Self-resetting circuits Circuits less observable Circuits with feedback Embedded –RAMs –ROMs –PLAs Error-checking circuits Circuits with redundant nodes

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Bad Testability: Fault Redundancy 1 & & & 1 & x1x1 x2x2 & x4x4 x3x3 y Faults at x 2 is not testable Optimized function: Internal signal dependencies: 1 & & Impossible pattern, OR  XOR is not testable Redundant gates (bad design):

CREDES Summer School © Raimund Ubar Fault Redundancy 1 & & & 1 1 0101 1010 0101 1 Hazard control circuit: Redundant AND-gate Fault  0 is not testable 1  0 0 Error control circuitry : Decoder   1 1 E = 1 if decoder is fault-free Fault  1 is not testable E= Hazard

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Hard to Test Faults Evaluation of testability:  Controllability  C 0 (i)  C 1 (j)  Observability  O Y (k)  O Z (k)  Testability & & x Defect Probability of detecting 1/ & i k j Y Z Controllability for 1 needed

© Raimund Ubar Consequeces of Bad Testability Redundant faults don’t need to be tested, because the functionality of the circuit remains correct. However, if you don’t know that the not-covered fault is redundant, the lower fault coverage will mean ambiguiety Hard-to-test faults have the same impact for random testing In deterministic testing the problem can be solved at higher cost 19

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Heuristic Testability Measures Controllability calculation: AND gate Measure: minimum number of nodes that must be set to produce 0 For inputs: C 0 (x) = C 1 (x) = 1 For other signals: recursive calculation starting from inputs C 0 (x i ) = 23 C 0 (x j ) = 11  C 0 (x k ) = C 0 (x 1 ) = 1 C 0 (x 2 ) = 1 min [C 0 (x i ), C 0 (x j ) ] + 1 = = min (23,11) + 1 = 12

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Heuristic Testability Measures Controllability calculation: Measure: minimum number of nodes that must be set to produce 1 For inputs: C 0 (x) = C 1 (x) = 1 For other signals: recursive calculation starting from inputs C 1 (x i ) = 23 C 1 (x j ) = 11 & C 1 (x k ) = C 1 (x i ) + C 1 (x j ) + 1 = = = 35 C 1 (x 1 ) = 1 C 1 (x 2 ) = 1

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Heuristic Testability Measures Controllability calculation: OR gate Measure: minimum number of nodes that must be set to produce 0 For inputs: C 0 (x) = C 1 (x) = 1 For other signals: recursive calculation starting from inputs C 0 (x i ) = 23 C 0 (x j ) = 11 1 C 0 (x k ) = C 0 (x 1 ) = 1 C 0 (x 2 ) = 1 C 0 (x i ) + C 0 (x j ) + 1 = = = 35

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Heuristic Testability Measures Controllability calculation: EXOR gate Measure: minimum number of nodes that must be set in order to produce 0 For inputs: C 0 (x) = C 1 (x) = 1 For other signals: recursive calculation starting from inputs C 0 (x i ) = 23 C 1 (x i ) = 18  C 0 (x k ) = min { [ C 0 (x i ) + C 0 (x j ) ], [C 1 (x i ) + C 1 (x j ) ] } + 1 = min{ (23 +12), ( ) } + 1 = min (35,38) + 1 = 36 C 0 (x 1 ) = 1 C 0 (x 2 ) = 1 C 0 (x j ) = 12 C 1 (x j ) = 20

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Heuristic Testability Measures Controllability calculation: Measure: minimum number of nodes that must be set in order to produce 0 or 1 For inputs: C 0 (x) = C 1 (x) = 1 For other signals: recursive calculation rules: & xy & x1x1 y x2x2 1 x1x1 y x2x2  x1x1 y x2x2 C 0 (y) = min  C 0 (x 1 ), C 0 (x 2 )  + 1 C 1 (y) = C 1 (x 1 ) + C 1 (x 2 ) + 1 C 0 (y) = C 1 (x) + 1 C 1 (y) = C 0 (x) + 1 C 1 (y) = min  C 1 (x 1 ), C 1 (x 2 )  + 1 C 0 (y) = C 0 (x 1 ) + C 0 (x 2 ) + 1 C 0 (y) = min  (C 0 (x 1 ) + C 0 (x 2 )), (C 1 (x 1 ) + C 1 (x 2 ))  + 1 C 1 (y) = min  (C 0 (x 1 ) + C 1 (x 2 )), (C 1 (x 1 ) + C 0 (x 2 ))  + 1

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Heuristic Testability Measures Observability calculation: Measure: minimum number of nodes which must be set for fault propagating For outputs: O(y) = 1 For other signals: recursive calculation starting from inputs O(x i ) = O(x k ) + C 1 (x j ) = = = 35 C 1 (x j ) = 11  O(y) = 1 O(x k ) = 23

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Heuristic Testability Measures Observability calculation: Measure: minimum number of nodes which must be set for fault propagating For outputs: O(y) = 1 For other signals: recursive calculation rules: & xy & x1x1 y x2x2 1 x1x1 y x2x2  x1x1 y x2x2 O(x 1 ) = O(y) + C 1 (x 2 ) + 1 O(x) = O(y) + 1 O(x 1 ) = O(y) + C 0 (x 2 ) + 1 O(x 1 ) = O(y) + 1

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Heuristic Testability Measures Testability calculation: Measure: sum of controllability and observability O(x i ) = 35 C 1 (x j ) = 11  O(y) = 1 O(x k ) = 23 T(x  0) = C 1 (x) + O(x) T(x  1) = C 0 (x) + O(x) T(x i = 0) = O(x i ) + C 1 (x j ) = = 51 C 1 (x i ) = 16

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Heuristic Testability Measures Controllability and observability: & && && & & a b c d e y Macro

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Heuristic Testability Measures Testability calculation: & & & & & & & a b c d e y Macro T(x  0) = C 1 (x) + O(x) T(x  1) = C 0 (x) + O(x)

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Probabilistic Testability Measures Controllability calculation: Measure: probability to produce 0 or 1 at the given nodes For inputs: C 0 (i) = p(x i =0) = 1 - p xi C 1 (i) = p(x i =1) = 1 - p(x i =0) = p xi For other signals: recursive calculation rules: & xy & x1x1 y x2x2 p y = p x1 p x2 p y = 1 - p x 1 x1x1 y x2x2 p y = 1 - (1 - p x1 )(1 - p x2 ) & x1x1 y xnxn... 1 x1x1 y xnxn

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Probabilistic Testability Measures Probabilities of reconverging fanouts:  x1x1 y x2x2 p y = 1 - (1 - p a ) (1 - p b ) = 1 - 0,75*0,75 = 0,44 & x1x1 y x2x2 & 1 a b & x y p y = p x p x = p x 2 ? Signal correlations: p y = (1 – p x1 ) p x2 + (1 – p x2 ) p x1 = 0,25 + 0,25 = 0,5

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Calculation of Signal Probabilities & x1x1 y x2x2 & 1 p y = 1 - (1 - p a ) (1 - p b ) = = 1 - (1 - p x1 (1 - p x2 ))(1 - p x2 (1 - p x1 )) = = 1 - (1 - p x1 + p x1 p x2 ) (1 - p x2 + p x1 p x2 ) = = 1 – (1 - p x2 + p x1 p x2 - p x1 + p x1 p x2 - p 2 x1 p x2 + + p x1 p x2 - p x1 p 2 x2 + p 2 x1 p 2 x2 ) = = 1 – (1 - p x2 + p x1 p x2 - p x1 + p x1 p x2 - p x1 p x2 + + p x1 p x2 - p x1 p x2 + p x1 p x2 ) = = p x2 - p x1 p x2 + p x1 - p x1 p x2 + p x1 p x2 - - p x1 p x2 + p x1 p x2 - p x1 p x2 ) = = p x1 + p x2 - 2p x1 p x2 = 0,5 a b Parker - McCluskey algorithm:

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Calculation of Signal Probabilities Straightforward methods: & & & a c y & b Parker - McCluskey algorithm: p y = p c p 2 = (1- p a p b ) p 2 = = (1 – (1- p 1 p 2 ) (1- p 2 p 3 )) p 2 = = p 1 p p 2 2 p 3 - p 1 p 2 3 p 3 = = p 1 p 2 + p 2 p 3 - p 1 p 2 p 3 = 0,38 Calculation gate by gate: p a = 1 – p 1 p 2 = 0,75, p b = 0,75, p c = 0,4375, p y = 0,22 For all inputs: p k = 1/2

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Probabilistic Testability Measures Parker-McCluskey: && & a c y & b Observability: p(  y/  a = 1) = p b p 2 = = (1 - p 2 p 3 ) p 2 = p 2 - p 2 2 p 3 = p 2 - p 2 p 3 = 0,25 x Testability: p(a  1) = p(  y/  a = 1) (1 - p a ) = = (p 2 - p 2 p 3 )(p 1 p 2 ) = = p 1 p p 1 p 2 2 p 3 = = p 1 p 2 - p 1 p 2 p 3 = 0,125 For all inputs: p k = 1/2

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Calculation of Signal Probabilities Idea: Complexity of exact calculation is reduced by using lower and higher bounds of probabilities Technique: Reconvergent fan-outs are cut except of one Probability range of [0,1] is assigned to all the cut lines The bounds are propagated by straightforward calculation Cutting method & & & & & & & a b c d e y Lower and higher bounds for the probabilities of the cut lines: p 71 := (0;1), p 72 := (0;1), p 73 := 0,75

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Calculation of Signal Probabilities For all inputs: p k = 0,5 Reconvergent fan-outs are cut except of one – 7 1 and 7 2 Probability range of [0,1] is assigned to all the cut lines and 7 2 The bounds are propagated by straightforward calculation Cutting method & & & & & & & a b c d e y Calculation steps: 1/2 [0,1] [1/2,1] 3/4 1/2 5/8 [1/2,1] [1/2,3/4] [1/4,3/4] [34/64,54/64] Exact value: 41/64

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Calculation of Signal Probabilities Method of conditional probabilities y x P(y) = p(y/x=0) p(x=0) + p(y/x=1) p(x=1) Probabilitiy for – y Conditions – x  set of conditions Conditional probabilitiy Idea of the method: Two conditional probabilities are calculated along the paths (NB! not bounds as in the case of the cutting method) Since no reconvergent fanouts are on the paths, no danger for signal correlations

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Calculation of Signal Probabilities Method of conditional probabilities & & & & & & & a b c d e y y x NB! Probabilities P k = [P k * = p(x k /x 7 =0), P k ** = p(x k /x 7 =1)] are propagated, not bounds as in the cutting method. For all inputs: p k = 1/2 3/4 [1,1/2] [1/2,3/4] [1/2,5/8] [1/2,11/16] p y = p(y/x 7 =0)(1 - p 7 ) + p(y/x 7 =1)p 7 = (1/2 x 1/4) + (11/16 x 3/4) = 41/64 1/2

Research in ATI © Raimund Ubar BDDs and Testing of Logic Circuits By the BDD for F(X) we can generate test patterns only for testing inputs 39 How about testing the internal nodes of the circuit?  SSBDD The tasks on BDDs: (1)Pattern simulation (analysis) (2)Pattern generation (synthesis)

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA 40 Test Generation with SSBDDs Test generation for: x 21  0 & & & 1 & x1x1 x2x2 x3x3 x4x4 y x11x11 x 21 x12x12 x 31 x13x13 x 22 x 32 101 010 1010 x11x11 y x21x21 x12x12 x31x31 x4x4 x13x13 x22x22 x32x 010 x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 y Test pattern: 1  0

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Calculation of Signal Probabilities p y = p(L 1 ) + p(L 2 ) = = p 1 p 21 p 23 + (1 - p 1 ) p 22 p 3 p 23 = = p 1 p 2 + (1 - p 1 )p 2 p 3 = 0,38 & & & a c y & b For all inputs: p k = 1/2 Using BDDs: y L1L1 L2L2 p 1 p 21 p 23 (1-p 1 )p 22 p 3 p #1#1 # y p2 p1p2 p1 p 2 (1-p 1 )p 3 #1#1 #0

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Probabilistic Testability Measures Using BDDs: y L1L1 L2L2 Observability: p(  y/  x 21 = 1) = p(L 1 ) p(L 2 ) p(L 3 ) = = p 1 p 23 p 22 (1 - p 3 ) = 0,125 & & & a c y & b x L3L3 Testability: p(x 21  0) = p 21 p(  y/  x 21 = 1) = = p 21 p(L 1 ) p(L 2 ) p(L 3 ) = = p 2 p 1 (1 - p 3 ) = 0,125 Fault

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Probabilistic Testability Measures Using BDDs: Observability: p(  y/  x 2 = 1) = p(L 1 ) p(L 2 ) = p(L 2 )= = p 1 = 0,5 & & & a c y & b x Fault y p 1 (1-p 2 ) #1#1 #0 L2L2 L1L1 Testability: p(x 21  0) = p 2 p(  y/  x 21 = 1) = = p 2 p 1 = 0,25

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Heuristic and Probabilistic Measures p y =   p x k: L k  L(1) x  X k CC 1 [y] = min {  CC 1 (x(m) } + const. k: l k  L(1) m  M k Heuristic controllability measure: Probabilistic measure:

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Heuristic Controllabilities Using BDDs for controllability calculation: & & & a c y & b Gate level calculation y L1L1 L2L BDD-based algorithm for the heuristic measure is the same as for the probabilistic measure C 1 (y) = min [(C 1 (L 1 ), C 1 (L 2 )] + 1 = = min [C 1 (x 1 ) + C 1 (x 2 ), C 0 (x 1 ) + C 1 (x 2 ) + C 1 (x 3 )] + 1 = = min [2, 3] + 1 = 3

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Calculating Probabilities on BDDs p y =   p x L k  L(1) x  X k Example: L 1 = (1,2 1,2 3 ) L 2 = (1,2 2,3,2 3 ) p y = p 1 p 2 + (1-p 1 )p 2 p 3 = 0, y L1L1 L2L2 p 1 p 21 p 23 (1-p 1 )p 22 p 3 p #1#1 #0 Set of nodes on the path Set of paths

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Register Transfer Level and DDs Word-level Decision Diagrams:

Research in ATI © Raimund Ubar The basic idea: Topological View on Fault Propagation on BDDs 48 m y 1 0 lmlm l1l1 l0l0 GyGy

Research in ATI © Raimund Ubar Generalization of BDDs m y 1 0 lmlm l1l1 l0l0 GyGy m Y h FkFk FnFn l0l0 l1l1 l2l2 lhlh lklk l k+1 F k+1 lnln lmlm GYGY Binary DD 2 terminal nodes and 2 edges from each node General case of DD n  2 terminal nodes and n  2 edges from each node Novelty: Boolean methods can be generalized in a straightforward way to higher functional levels 49

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Calculating Observabilities RT-Level Circuits p y =   p x L k  L(1) x  X k Gate-level calculation: RT-level calculation: P(y=z(m T )) =   P(x=e) L i  L(m 0,m T ) x  X i m Y FkFk FnFn l0l0 l1l1 l2l2 lmTlmT lklk l k+1 F k+1 lnln lmlm GYGY DD for a Data Path: m0m0 mTmT

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Calculating Observabilities RT-Level Data Paths p y =   p x L k  L(1) x  X k Gate-level calculation: Example: P(R 2 = R 1  R 2 ) = P(y 4 =2) P(y 3 =3) P(y 2 =0) RT-level calculation: P(y=z(m T )) =   P(x=e) L i  L(m 0,m T ) x  X i

Technical University Tallinn, ESTONIA Calculating Probabilities for FSM p y = p(y=1) =   p x L k  L(1) x  X k 3,4 0 2 q q  1  4 x A  2 1  5 x B  3 Gate-level calculation: RT-level calculation: P(y=k) =   P(x=e) L i  L(k) x  X i Example: P(q=5) = P(q=2)P(x B =0) + P(q=3) + P(q=4) Nonterminal nodes (control-path):