Clock Domain Crossing

6/6/2019 1 Clock Domain Crossing
1
Clock Domain Crossing
Overview
As modern System-on-Chip (SoC) designs continue to face increasing size and
complexity challenges, multiple asynchronous clock domains have been employed for
different I/O interfaces. A CDC-based (Clock Domain Crossing) design is a design that
has one clock asynchronous to, or has a variable phase relation with, another clock. A
CDC signal is a signal latched by a flip-flop (FF) in one clock domain and sampled in
another asynchronous clock domain. Transferring signals between asynchronous clock
domains may lead to setup or hold timing violations of flip-flops. These violations may
cause signals to be meta-stable. Even if synchronizers could eliminate the meta-stability,
incorrect use, such as convergence of synchronized signals or improper synchronization
protocols, may also result in functional CDC errors. Functional validation of such SoC
designs is one of the most complex and expensive tasks. Simulation on register transfer
level (RTL) is still the most widely used method. However, standard RTL simulation can
not model the effect of meta-stability.
Within one clock domain, proper static timing analysis (STA) can guarantee that data
does not change within clock setup and hold times. When signals pass from one clock
domain to another asynchronous domain, there is no way to avoid meta-stability since
data can change at any time.
As the CDC errors are not addressed and verified early in the design cycles, many
designs exhibit functional errors only late in their design cycles or during post-silicon
verification. Several coverage metrics are proposed to measure the validation's
adequacy and progress, such as code based coverage, finite state machine coverage,
and functional coverage. Nevertheless, these coverage metrics do not have direct
relations with CDC issues.
To address clock domain problems due to meta-stability and data sampling issues,
designers typically employ several types of synchronizers. The most commonly used
synchronizer is based on the well-known two-flip-flop circuit. Other types of
synchronizers are based on handshaking protocols or FIFOs. In a limited number of
cases it may be useful to employ dual-clock FIFO buffers or other mechanisms optimized
for domains with similar clock frequencies.
To accurately verify clock domain crossings, both structural and functional CDC analysis
should be carried out. Structural clock domain analysis looks for issues like insufficient
synchronization, or combinational logic driving flip-flop based synchronizers. Functional
clock domain analysis uses assertion-based verification to check the correct usage of
synchronizers. Assertions may be used to find problems such as data stability violations
when going from a fast clock domain to a slower one. Assertions generated in PSL or
other assertion languages such as OpenVera or SystemVerilog, can then be used in
formal model checking or simulation.
This chapter is organized in the following sections:
Background - Prepares the background required for further discussions.

Synchronization Techniques - Discusses the synchronization techniques.
CDC Analysis - Discusses the various steps of CDC analysis.
Leda-CDC Flow - Provides information on the basic Leda-CDC tool flow.
https://filebox.ece.vt.edu/~athanas/4514/ledadoc/html/pol_cdc.html 1/21
6/6/2019 Automatically Generated CDC Assertions
1 Clock Domain-Crossing
Provides a detailed specification of
the Leda supported assertions.
CDC AEP Rule Usage & Naming Conventions for Automatically Generated CDC
AEP Files - Provides further detail of assertion related topics.
Background
Clock domain
A clock domain is a part of a design that has a clock that operates asynchronous to, or
has a variable phase relationship with, another clock in the design. For example, a clock
and its derived clock (via a clock divider) are in the same clock domain because they
have a constant phase relationship. But, 50MHz and 37MHz clocks (whose phase
relationship changes over time) define two separate clock domains. Figure 1 illustrates
three different clocks in a design, but synchronous to each other. CLK, its inversion and
D1 (derived from CLK) are synchronous to each other.
Figure 1:
Synchronous Clock
A clock domain crossing signal is a signal from one clock domain that is sampled by a
register in another clock domain. More details of the clock origin/domain inference
engine are given in [1].
Meta-stability
Every flip-flop (FF) that is used in any design has a specified setup and hold time, or the
time in which the data input is not legally permitted to change before and after a
sampling clock edge. This time window is specified as a design parameter precisely to
keep a data signal from changing too close to another synchronizing signal that could
cause the output to go meta-stable.
Figure 2: Setup and hold time of a Flip-flop
However, if some input (say d in

Figure 2) violates the setup and
hold time of a FF, the output of the
FF (q in Figure 2) keeps oscillating
for an indefinite amount of time.
This unstable value may or may
not non-deterministically converge
to a stable value (either 0 or 1)
before the next sampling clock
edge arrives.
Example - Consider the 1-bit CDC

signal adat, which is sampled by
register bdat1 in Figure 3. Since adat comes from a different clock domain (aclk), its
value can change at any time with respect to bdat1's clock (bclk). If the value of adat
changes during bdat1's setup and hold time, the register bdat1 might/might not assume
a state between 0 and 1. In this state, the register is said to be meta-stable. A meta-
stable register may/may not (unpredictably) settle to either 0 or 1, causing illegal signal
values to be propagated throughout the rest of the design.
Figure 3: Meta-stability scenario
In a multi-clock design, meta-stability is inevitable, but there are certain design

techniques that help to avoid the chance of getting meta-stable. The following section
provides an overview of different synchronization techniques.
Synchronization Techniques
6/6/2019
The main
1 Clock Domain Crossing
responsibility
of a
synchronizer
is to allow
sufficient
time such
that any
meta-sable
output can
settle down
to a stable
value in the
destination
clock
domain. The
most common synchronizer used by designers is two-flip-flop (2-FF) synchronizers as
shown in Figure 4. Usually the control signals in a design are synchronized by 2-FF
synchronizers.
Figure 4: A 2-FF synchronizer
Synchronization of Control Signals with 2-FF Synchronizers
In a 2-FF synchronizer, the first flip-flop samples the asynchronous input signal into the
destination clock domain and waits for a full destination clock cycle to permit any meta-
stability on the stage-1 output signal to decay, then the stage-1 signal is sampled by the
same clock into a second stage flip-flop, with the intended goal that the stage-2 signal is
now a stable and valid signal synchronized into the destination clock domain. It is
theoretically possible for the stage-1 signal to still be sufficiently meta-stable by the
time the signal is clocked into the second stage to cause the stage-2 signal to also go
meta-stable.
However, note that the meta-stability is a probabilistic phenomenon. The meta-stable

output converges to a stable value with time. Therefore, even if the input to the stage-2
FF still remains meta-stable, the probability that the output of the stage-2 FF will remain
meta-stable for a full destination clock cycle is asymptotically close to zero. This
calculation of the probability of the time between synchronization failures (MTBF) is a
function of multiple variables including the clock frequencies used to generate the input
signal and to clock the synchronizing flip-flops. For most synchronization applications, a
2-FF synchronizer is sufficient to remove all likely meta-stability.
Even if a 2-FF synchronizer helps to prevent propagation of meta-stable values, for the
correct operation of the design, some other issues needs to be tackled. These issues are
explained in the following sections.
Input Data Stability to Avoid Data Loss
A synchronizer circuit ensures avoiding propagation of meta-stability into the destination

clock domain, but it can't ensure propagation of correct value as the meta-stable signal
non-deterministically converges to any stable value (1 or 0). However, for correct
operation of the design, every transition on the input signal needs to be correctly
propagated to the destination domain. To ensure preventing data loss (losing input
transitions), the input signal needs to hold its value a minimum amount of time such
that there is at least a single destination sampling clock edge, which samples the input
value correctly (No setup/hold violation; Figure 5 gives such an example). This stability
condition on the input signal is usually checked by putting assertions. For more
information, see the section "Flip-flop Synchronizers".
6/6/2019 Figure 5: Stability1 Clock
of input
Domain signal
Crossing value
Gray
Encoding
to Avoid
Data
Incoherence (For Vector CDC Control Signals)
Similar to the case of syncing a single bit control signal, the natural way to transfer a
vector control signal is to model each bit of the vector to be separately synchronized by
a FF synchronizer. You have already seen that even if you use FF synchronizers, it
usually takes more than one cycle to propagate correct input values to the destination
domain. Now consider a case where every bit of the vector takes a transition very close
to the destination clock edge. Also assume that, by virtue of meta-stability, only some of
these transitions are correctly captured by the destination domain in the first cycle. Now,
if the bit values of the vector decide the state of the destination domain, after the first
cycle, the destination domain may move into an invalid state.
Figure 6: Scenario indicating Data Incoherence
Example -
Suppose a
vector
control signal
Sig [2:0]
crosses from
Domain 1 to
Domain 2.
Signal Sig
also decides
the state of
Domain 2
and you
assume that
the value
"100" of Sig
[2:0]
indicates an invalid state for Domain 2. Now, think of a situation, where the signal Sig
wants to change its value from "000" to "101" (both indicate valid states). This requires
the two bits Sig [0] and Sig [2] to transit simultaneously. Both these transition occurs
very close to the destination sampling clock edge (see Fig 6). By virtue of meta-stability,
transition on Sig [2] gets captured correctly and the transition on Sig [0] is missed. In
this way, in the first cycle of the destination clock, the system moves to state "100"
which is invalid.
This case would not have happened, if changing the states of the design requires
changing only a single bit of the vector (Sig in this case). In case of a single bit
transition, either that transition would be captured in the destination domain or not. This
way the design either stays in the previous state or move to a valid state. Therefore, for
vector control signals (multi-bit signals, such as address buses), the usual solution is to
use a Gray code when crossing a clock domain boundary. A Gray code ensures that only
a single bit changes as the bus counts up or down. The presence of gray coding on
vector control signal can be checked by using assertions. For more information, see the
section "Gray Code Encoding for Vector Control Signals".
Synchronization of CDC Data Signals
One of the challenges in designing a multi-clock based system is to enable correct

transfer of data buses from one clock domain to another. The difficulty arises, as
individual bits of a data bus can change randomly while changing clock boundaries.
Using synchronizers/gray code to handle the passing of data bus is generally
unacceptable.
Three common methods for synchronizing data between clock domains are:
Using MUX based synchronizers.

6/6/2019 Using Handshake signals. 1 Clock Domain Crossing
Using FIFOs (First In First Out memories) to store data with one clock domain
and to retrieve data with another clock domain.
Passing Data through MUX Synchronizer
As shown in the following figure (Figure 7), in a MUX synchronizer, the control path is
usually FF-synchronized while the synced-in control signal is used to synchronize the
data paths.
Figure 7: A MUX synchronizer
Handshaking Data between Clock Domains
Data can be passed between clock domains using a set of handshake control signals,
depending on the application and the paranoia of the design engineer. When it comes to
handshaking, the more control signals that are used, the longer the latency to pass data
from one clock domain to another. The biggest disadvantage in using handshaking is the
latency required to pass and recognize all of the handshaking signals for each data word
that is transferred. Figure 8 shows a typical handshake synchronizer.
Figure 8: A Handshake Synchronizer
For many open-ended

data-passing
applications, a simple
two-line handshaking
sequence is sufficient.
The sender places data
onto a data bus and
then synchronizes a
"req" signal (request) to
the receiving clock
domain. When the "req"
signal is recognized in
the destination clock
domain, the receiver
clocks the data into a register (the data should have been stable for at least two/three
sampling clock edges in the destination clock domain) and then passes an "ack" signal
(acknowledgement) through a synchronizer to the sender. When the sender recognizes
the synchronized "ack" signal, the sender can change the value being driven onto the
data bus.
Passing Data by FIFO between Clock Domains
One of the most popular methods of passing data between clock domains is to use a
FIFO. A dual port memory is used for the FIFO storage. One port is controlled by the
sender, which puts data into the memory as fast as one data word (or one data bit for
serial applications) per write clock. The other port is controlled by the receiver, which
pulls data out of memory; one data word per read clock. Two control signals are used to
indicate if the FIFO is empty, full, or partially full. Two additional control signals are
frequently used to indicate if the FIFO is almost full or almost empty. In theory, placing
data into a shared memory with one clock and removing the data from the shared
memory with another clock seems like an 1easy
6/6/2019
and ideal solution to passing data
Clock Domain Crossing
between clock domains. For the most part it is, but generating accurate full and empty
flags can be challenging.
Figure 9: A dual-clock FIFO Synchronizer
User-defined
Synchronizers
Sometimes, you may specify

some cells to be synchronizers.
If this cell is found on the path
between the FF, the path has to
be considered as synchronized.
Note that the cell itself may have
other inputs than the source flip-
flop as shown in the following
illustration. The way of
specifying a synchronizer is explained in chapter 2, section "Using Tcl Command
'set_cdc_synchronizer'".
Figure 10: User-defined Synchronizer
CDC Analysis
Following are the basic steps for
CDC analysis and checking
(irrespective of toolset
implementation):
Structural Analysis to
Identify CDC Signals and
Appropriate
Synchronizers
The most important task of any CDC structural analyzer is to find out all the signals
(CDC) that cross clock boundaries. In Leda, rule NTL_CDC01 (For more information, see
the section "CDC Ruleset" in chapter 2.) reports all the un-synchronized CDC paths.
However a CDC path may be synchronized in the destination clock domain. Thus,
identification of synchronization schemes is very important to avoid reporting false CDC
reports. Automatic detection of synchronizers is very tough and may depend on the
underlying design principle. Therefore, sometime, the designer needs to provide
additional information for the underlying synchronization schemes.
Once extraction of information for all the CDC paths (synchronized and un-synchronized)
is over, you need to see whether there are structural defects before and after the
synchronizers.
Structural Analysis to Identify Structural Defects Before and After

Synchronization
Many design teams choose a few synchronizer styles, apply them to all signals crossing
clock domains and enforce their usage by design style rules and design reviews.
Although proper synchronizers are essential for multi-clock designs, they are insufficient
to avoid all possible problems regarding signals crossing clock domains. Considerable
extra care must be taken in the design process to avoid these problems. Some of the
structural problems that may cause functional errors in multi-clock based systems are as
follows.
Convergence in the Crossover Path
Using combinational elements in a CDC path before synchronization can lead to

functional problems. For example, it is important that glitches in the driving clock
domain not be propagated into the receiving clock domain. Since the flip-flops in the
receiving clock domain can sample the signals from the driving clock domain at any
point, there is no way through static timing analysis to ensure that the glitch will not be
propagated. Figure 11 shows an example of
6/6/2019
combinational logic (convergence) that
could cause a glitch to pass from one clock domain to another. Rule NTL_CDC02 detects
this issue.
Figure 11: Glitch propagation due to convergence in CDC Path
Divergence in the Crossover Path
Design styles which allow divergent logic on a CDC signal to multiple synchronization
paths, may cause functional errors. As Figure 12 illustrates, a single control signal
(Trans_en) from the source clock domain (clk1) is used to activate both the "addr" and
"data" transfer unit in the destination clock domain (clk2). The purpose is to enable both
the logics at the same time. To model this, fan-outs of Trans_en has been used before
the synchronization takes place. However, due to the propagation delay and different
meta-stable settling times, the two fan-outs ('addr_en' and 'data_en') could reach the
Address and Data transfer logics at different times. Therefore these two logics may start
at different time causing functional errors. This type of structure should be avoided by
fanning out a single FF synchronized 'common enable' signal to the two transfer logics.
Rule NTL_CDC03 detects this issue.
Figure 12: Divergence in the crossover path
Divergence of
Meta-stable
Signal
Using a meta-stable
signal in a design can
be erroneous.
Therefore multiple
fan-out of the output
of the first FF of a FF
synchronizer can
cause functional
errors. Rule
NTL_CDC04 detects this issue.
6/6/2019
Figure 13: Divergence of meta-stable signal
Re-convergence
of Synchronized
Signals
Synchronization and
glitch elimination
alone are not enough
to ensure reliable
transfer of data
across clock domains.
When a signal goes meta-stable, a synchronizer settles it down, but cannot guarantee
the precise number of cycles before the valid signal is available in the receiving clock
domain. Therefore, if (1) two independent signals or (2) bits of a multi-bit signal are
independently synchronized (using same type of synchronizers or different types of
synchronizers), the bits may arrive in the receiving clock domain skewed with respect to
one another. A very simple form of re-convergence is shown in Figure 14. Rule
NTL_CDC05 and NTL_CDC07 detect this issue.
Figure 14: The simplest form of re-convergence
Therefore, even
when meta-stability
does not occur, any
pair of bits can get
out of
synchronization if
routing differences
and electrical effects
cause the two bits to
have different delays
before reaching their
respective
synchronizers. It is
possible for one
synchronizer to sample its input and capture a signal change before the other
synchronizer captures the change, at which point the two copies of the signal will be
skewed by a cycle and no longer correlated.
Leda has six rules that check all the above structural checks for CDC signals. The
purpose of these rules is to provide the following information. Detailed description of all
the Leda structural checks is provided in chapter 2.
a. NTL_CDC01 - Reports all the unsynchronized CDC paths in the design.

b. NTL_CDC02 - Reports all convergence in the crossover paths in the design.
c. NTL_CDC03 - Reports all divergence in the crossover paths in the design.
d. NTL_CDC04 - Reports divergence of any meta-stable signal in the design.
e. NTL_CDC05/07 - Reports all kinds of re-convergence of synchronized signals in the
design. There is a subtle difference between rule NTL_CDC05 and NTL_CDC07. For more
information about the difference, see the section "CDC Ruleset" in chapter 2.
Determination and Validation of Appropriate Properties for Every

Synchronizer
Just having a synchronization circuit connected is only part of the solution; the
associated logic must interact correctly with the synchronization circuit to ensure valid
operation. To ensure this, assertions need to be specified that check correct functionality
of the synchronization circuits and validates correct use of the synchronizers by the
environment in which they are instantiated. You automatically specify these properties
once for every synchronizer and automatically attach them to all instances of the
corresponding synchronization building blocks. The supported property checks for CDC
synchronization circuit elements are given as follows. For more information about these
property specifications, see the section "Automatically Generated CDC Assertions".
Flip-flop Synchronizer
Control signal stability assertions

MUX Synchronizer

Data signal stability assertions
Handshake Synchronizer

Data signal stability assertions
Handshake protocol check assertions
FIFO Synchronizer

Gray coded assertions for read and write pointers
FIFO protocol (full/empty check) assertions
Data integrity checks
A more complete description of the CDC AEP (automatically extracted properties) usage
is given in the section "CDC AEP Rule Usage".
Leda - CDC Flow

The complete Leda CDC flow is given in Figure 15. The main CDC related modules have
been colored. The CDC verification engine takes help of the Magellan/VCS for checking
the Leda CDC assertions (statically/dynamically).
Figure 15: The complete Leda CDC flow
Automatically Generated CDC Assertions

Structural analysis primarily checks whether there exists a synchronizer in the CDC
paths. Having a synchronizer connected only solves the verification problem partially.
You additionally need to check the following two features.
1. The environment (associated logic) must interact properly with the synchronizer.
2. The synchronizer itself behaves correctly.
These two checks are mandatory to ensure valid operation in real life. The AEP
(automatically extracted properties) engine of Leda generates and binds assertions that
check correct functionality of the synchronizers and validates correct use of the
synchronizers by its environment. To identify the synchronizers, the AEP engine uses the
Leda structural analyzer. In the following paragraphs, you will categorically enumerate
the synchronizer related checks for ABV (assertion based verification).
Flip-flop Synchronizers
Description
The FF synchronizers (shown in Fig 16) form the basic building block for most of the
existing synchronization circuits. A simple FF synchronizer consists of m (> 1) FF
modeled as a shift register running on the 'destination clock'. Once the presence of a FF
synchronizer having m stages is detected, the following property is generated to ensure
that the device functions correctly in presence of this synchronizer.
If no assumptions are made about the relationship between the 'source' and 'destination'
clock domains, then the following property ensures that all input signal values can be
reliably transported to the synchronizer output.
Input data values must be stable for m+1 destination clock edges.
Figure 16: Flip-flop Synchronizers
Implementation
Example SVA codes for the above properties are given as follows. This assertion verifies
the stability of din as observed in the destination clock domain. Signal rst is the reset
signal (if any, with the appropriate polarity) extracted from the synchronizer FF, din is
the single bit input to the first FF of the synchronizer.
property p_stability;
disable iff (rst)
@(<appropriate_edge> dclk)
!$stable (din) |=> $stable
(din)[*m] );
endproperty
A_p_stability: assert property (p_stability);
MUX Synchronizers
Description
Designs typically have both control and data paths. As shown in the following figure (Fig
17), the control paths are usually flop-synchronized while the synced-in control signals
are used to synchronize the data paths. Here, these data paths use a controlled
synchronizer MUX for crossing clock domains. These control MUXs are sometimes called
D-MUX, MUX synchronizer, or sync MUX.
Figure 17: MUX synchronizers
The MUX
synchronizer
has the
following
functional
requirements
to ensure
correct
results.
6/6/2019 sready must be stable for m+1 number ofCrossing
1 Clock Domain destination clock cycles (modeled
by property p_stability as explained in the section "Flip-flop Synchronizers").
data should remain stable in the destination clock domain during the data
transfer phase (indicated by the time dready is asserted in dclk domain and
until dready deasserted in dclk domain).
Implementation
Stability of Data
property p_data_stable;
disable iff (drst)
@(<appropriate edge> dclk)
((dready) |=> ($stable (data) ||
(!dready));
endproperty
A_p_data_stable: assert property (p_data_stable);
Handshake Synchronizers (Push)
Description
There are different types of handshake synchronizers in practice, but most come down
to the fundamental working principle of synchronizing a single-bit request into the
destination clock domain and waiting for a synchronized version of the acknowledge to
come back. The differences in the architecture of the handshake synchronizers take
place because of the higher level protocols for the associated interfaces, data
management, etc.
The handshake synchronizers use two m-flip-flop synchronizers to generate request and
acknowledge signals. The associated properties are given as follows.
Input Data Stability for the m-flip-flop Synchronizers - Input data values must
be stable for m+1 destination clock edges (Re-use of the assertion in 6.a)
Protocol check - The sender and the receiver should follow the handshake
protocol correctly.
Data Stability - The data must be present when request is asserted on the
destination and remain stable until the acknowledgment is generated.
Figure 18: Handshake synchronizers
Implementation
The following assertions cover the proper use of the m-flip-flop synchronizers, the
handshake protocol, and the corresponding data stability.
1. Input Data Stability for the m-flip-flop synchronizers

Request signal (sreq) of the sender and Acknowledgement signal (dack) must be stable
for m+1 'dclk' and 'sclk' cycles respectively as implemented in the section "Flip-flop
Synchronizers".
2. Protocol check
a. The sender should continue to assert the sreq signal until sack is asserted at the
source clock (sclk) domain.
b. The
6/6/2019 sender should not assert a new request (sreq)
1 Clock Domain until the acknowledgement for the
Crossing
previous transfer is de-asserted in the source clock (sclk) domain.

A SVA property that covers the above two checks is given as follows.
property src_conformance (clk, rst, ssig, dsig);
disable iff (rst)
@(<appropriate edge> clk)
ssig && !dsig |=>ssig;
endproperty
A_src_conformance_req: assert property (src_conformance (sclk, srst,
sreq, sack));
A_src_conformance_new_req:
assert property (src_conformance (sclk, srst, !sreq, !sack));
Similar properties for the destination clock domain (dclk) are given as follows.
- The receiver should continue to assert the dack signal till dreq is asserted at the
destination clock (dclk) domain.
- The receiver should not assert a new acknowledgement (dack), until a new request is
received in the destination clock (dclk) domain.
A SVA property that covers the above two checks is given as follows.
property dest_conformance (clk, rst, ssig, dsig);
disable iff (rst)
@(<appropriate edge> clk)
ssig |=>dsig;
endproperty
A_dest_conformance_req: assert property (dest_conformance (dclk, drst,
dreq, dack));
A_dest_conformance_new_req:
assert property (dest_conformance (dclk, drst, !dreq, !dack));
3. Data stability
- The receiver should continue to receive stable data till it asserts the acknowledgment.
The following SVA property implements the above two scenarios.
property data_stability (clk, rst, dreq, dack, data);
disable iff (rst)
@(<appropriate edge> clk) (dreq && !dack) => $stable (data);
endproperty
A_data_stability_dest:
assert property (dest_stability (dclk, drst, dreq, dack, data));
The checks for Pull synchronizers are similar.
Dual Clock FIFO Synchronizers
Description
Another common CDC synchronization circuit, which is used when the high latency of
the handshake protocols cannot be tolerated, is the dual-clock asynchronous FIFO as
shown in Fig 19. Although many implementation variations exist, the basic operation is
the same; data is written into a dual-port RAM block from the source clock domain and
the RAM is read in the destination clock domain. Gray-coded read and write pointers are
passed into the alternate clock domain (using two m-flip-flop synchronizers) to generate
full and empty status flags. The following properties are generated for the dual-clock
asynchronous FIFO:
The producer never writes when the FIFO is full.

The consumer never reads when the FIFO is empty.
Read and Write pointers must be gray-coded at source.
Checks for data integrity (FIFO preserves Order and Data Value).
Figure 19: FIFO Based Synchronizer
Implementation
The following SVA code provides a possible implementation of these checks. The
p_data_integrity assertion starts a new thread with a unique cnt value whenever wdata
is written to the FIFO and checks the rdata value against the local data variable
whenever the corresponding read occurs. The first_match is required in p_data_integrity
6/6/2019 1 Clock Domain Crossing to ensure
the
property
checks
rdata on
the first
occurrence
of a read
with the
corresponding cnt, otherwise it waits for ever for a rdata match at the rcnt value. You
should create a module M, which contains the assertions. It is then bound to the nearest
top-level module instance containing the FIFO code.
No Load on Full & No Read on Empty

property p_bad_access(clk, inc, flag);
@(<appropriate_edge> clk) inc |-> !flag;
endproperty : p_bad_access
//-- Property for bad write access
A_p_bad_access_write: assert property (p_bad_access (wclk,winc,wfull));
//-- Property for bad read access
A_p_bad_access_read: assert property (p_bad_access (rclk,rinc,rempty));
Order and Data Preservation

//- The following code mimics the grey coded read and write pointers. If
you have
//- those pointers automatically identified from the design, this is not
required
bit [$bit (waddr)-1:0] rcnt=0, wcnt=0;
always @(posedge wclk or negedge wrst_n) begin
if (wrst_n) wcnt <= 0;
else if (winc) begin
wcnt = wcnt + 1;
end
end
always @(posedge rclk or negedge rrst_n) begin
if (rrst_n) rcnt <= 0;
else if (rinc) begin
rcnt = rcnt + 1;
end
end
property p_data_integrity
int cnt; logic [$bits (wdata)-1:0] data;
disable iff (!wrst_n || !rrst_n)

@(posedge wclk)
(winc, cnt = wcnt, data = wdata) |=>
@(posedge rclk)
(first_match (##[0:$] (rinc && (rcnt == cnt))) |->
(rdata == data));
endproperty : p_data_integrity
A_p_data_integrity: assert property (p_data_integrity);
Gray Code Encoding for Vector Control Signals
Description
This check addresses multi-bit signals (bit vectors or a collection of individual signals)
that originate in one clock domain with the clocking event sclk and then re-converge in
another clock domain with the clocking event dclk without using any of the above
handshake-based synchronization schemes. Such signals must all have m-flip-flop
synchronizers and in addition they must be Grey-code encoded before entering the
synchronizers.
6/6/2019 In this way, when there is a1 Clock
changeDomainfrom
Crossingone state of the multi-bit signal
to another, only one bit changes at a time. It ensures that the destination side will not
sample inconsistent state values due to different skews and meta-stability delays on
each bit. The Gray code may be decoded on the destination side, after the individual
synchronizers.
Figure 20: Multi-bit Data Transfer
Once such multi-

bit signals are
identified, the
purpose of the
function checks is
to verify that state
changes on the
source side before
entering the bit
synchronizers
follow the Gray
code.
Implementation
Each individual m-flip-flop synchronizer must satisfy the signal stability properties
indicated in 1.1.2. In addition, the Gray code assertion verifies that whenever there is a
change of value on data_in the next value differs from the preceding one only in one bit.
The vector data_in is formed by concatenating all the variables that are part of the
multi-bit signal.
property p_gray_coded (clk, rst,data);
disable iff (rst)
@(<appropriate_edge> clk) !$stable (data) |-> ($onehot
(data ^ $past (data));
endproperty
A_p_gray_coded: assert property (p_gray_coded (dclk, rst, din));
In the following section, you will read how Leda generates these assertions and how to
use these assertions for verification.
CDC AEP Rule Usage

Clock Domain Crossing is a global problem and Leda currently has an effective solution
for CDC verification. In this section, the CDC rules that generate assertions for verifying
functionality of each of the CDC synchronizer recognized in the design (NTL_CDC06, and
NTL_CDC14 - NTL_CDC16) are elaborated. In addition, there is a rule NTL_CDC08,
which checks for the correct implementation of grey coding for each vector CDC control
signal detected in the design.
The purpose of adding these five rules is to provide the following information:
NTL_CDC06 - Indicates that FF synchronizers have been used in the design.

For each of these FF synchronizers, Leda generates assertion for checking the
signal stability property of the associated CDC control signal.
NTL_CDC08 - Indicates that vector CDC control signals have been used in the
design. For each of such vector CDC control signal, Leda generates assertion
for checking whether the associated vector has been gray coded.
NTL_CDC14 - Indicates that MUX synchronizers have been used in the design.
For each of such MUX synchronizers, Leda generates assertions for checking
signal stability of the associated control and data signals.
NTL_CDC15 - Indicates that Handshake (Push/Pull) synchronizers have been
used in the design. For each of such Handshake synchronizers, Leda generates
assertions for checking signal stability of the associated control and data
signals. In addition, it generates assertions for checking the correctness of the
associated handshake protocol.
NTL_CDC16 - Indicates that FIFO synchronizers have been used in the design.
For each of such FIFO synchronizers, Leda generates assertions for checking
empty/full criterion of the associated FIFO. In addition, it generates assertions14/21
https://filebox.ece.vt.edu/~athanas/4514/ledadoc/html/pol_cdc.html
6/6/2019 for checking the (a) data signal integrity
1 Clock Domainof the FIFO, and (b) gray coding of
Crossing
the FIFO read/write pointers.
Furthermore, the detailed structural analysis statistics for the CDC synchronizers (such
as the numbers, locations etc.) can be accessed in the following ways:
While using Tcl mode (switch leda +tcl_shell), there is a command called
'report_cdc_info', which displays all types of detected CDC structures.
There are 7 rules (NTL_CDC01, NTL_CDC01_0, NTL_CDC01_1, ...,
NTL_CDC01_6) which when selected displays all types of CDC structures
(synchronized, unsynchronized) detected in a design by Leda.
The section "CDC Tcl Interface" provides details of the current CDC Tcl interface.
Additionally, each of the CDC assertion specific rules NTL_CDC14 - NTL_CDC16 also
provides signal specific information about the CDC synchronizers. An example is
provided in the section "CDC Analysis".
Naming Convention for Automatically Generated CDC

AEP Files
For each of the rules specified in previous section, Leda generates a separate assertion
file. This file contains the template/definition for the associated assertion. The naming
convention of the assertion files (also definitions) follows the specific issue for which the
assertion has been generated. For example, 'aep_signal_stability.v' file contains
assertion definition for checking the control signal stability. The generated file names
along with their purposes are given as follows:
aep_signal_stability.v - Checks control signal stability.

aep_mux_data_signal_stability.v - Checks data signal stability of a MUX
synchronizer.
aep_handshake_data_signal_stability.v - Checks data signal stability of a
Handshake synchronizer.
aep_handshake_protocol_check.v - Checks handshake protocol checks for a
Handshake synchronizer.
aep_fifo_validate_assertions.v - Checks fifo properties (full/empty, data
integrity) for a FIFO synchronizer.
Each of these assertion definition files are generated only once. As every complex
synchronizer (MUX, FIFO, and Handshake) uses FF synchronizers for synchronizing the
control signals, aep_signal_satbility.v is also re-used for each of them.
Binding the Assertion Definitions to the Design
The generated assertion definitions are attached to the design signals using a set of
'bind' statements. These bind statements are generated in a separate file named
'leda_top_properties.v'. As there can be multiple instances of a specific synchronizer, for
each of these instances, a separate bind statement is generated. The instance name of
the assertion definitions (used in the bind statements) is numbered.
The general idea for generating properties is to use prepackage modules containing
assertions and bind them to the verified design. The bind should try to bind the lowest
possible module in the design hierarchy in order to allow reduction of the design size for
the formal tool. The bind command will have the general following syntax:
bind <property_module_name> #( <parameters> ) <bind_instance_name> (
<port_list>);
where, <bind_instance_name> is of the form:
i_<RULE_LABEL>_<INSTANCE_NUMBER>
For example if there are three FF synchronizers detected in a design, there would be one
control signal stability assertion definition and three separate bind statements generated
with three unique assertion instances namely - i_NTL_CDC06_1, i_NTL_CDC06_2, and
i_NTL_CDC06_3.
Sometimes,
6/6/2019 if you want to avoid explosion1 of the
Clock simulation
Domain Crossing time or Magellan running
time, you can also bound the number of properties that are generated. The
set_max_properties command placed in the design configuration file allows controlling
this number. This command is not specific to the CDC Manager; it is part of the property
generation manager.
set_aep_max_properties -value max_value
Using Generated Assertions in VCS and Magellan
The generated assertions can be verified on the design using (1) VCS (simulation based
verification) or (2) Magellan (formal verification). To simplify building of the assertions, a
file (named leda_prop_file.lst) containing the list of automatically generated files is
created. As a result, you only need to attach file 'leda_prop_file.lst' to the associated
checker tool.
The set of assertion related files are generated in a directory naming 'ForMG'. This
directory is located by default in .leda_work or in case .leda_work is missing in the 'run
directory.
Moreover, for Magellan, a project file template (named 'LedaMgPrjFile.prj') is also

generated. You (sometimes) may need to add additional information like - the clock
periods, the reset configurations etc. in this template. You don't need to use any switch
for generating the assertions. The assertions and the associated files are created by
default.
Failure Debugging
In case of any CDC assertion violations for a design, you need to use the debugging aids
of the associated checker (VCS/Magellan) for finding the root cause of the failure.
Using Property Generation for Checking
Some of the CDC rules can identify certain situations and generate properties for
dynamic and formal verification. Different rules generating properties are written in the
same SystemVerilog file LEDA_<top>_properties.sv. You can control the number of
properties generated by the CDC rules using the following command:
Syntax
set_aep_max_properties -value max_value

Arguments
-value Specify the value to control the number of properties generated by CDC
rules.
The general idea for generating properties is to use prepackage modules containing
assertions and bind them to the verified design. The bind tries to bind the lowest
possible module in the design hierarchy in order to allow reduction of the design size for
the formal tool. The bind command will have the general following syntax:
Syntax
bind <property_module_name> #(<parameter>) <bind_instance_name>

(<port_list>)
where, <bind_instance_name> is of the form

<RULE_LABEL>_<FILENAME>_<LINENUMBER>
Assertion Library
Instead of generating assertions or properties for each check, Leda uses an assertion
library packaged with the tool. Each check now binds to the module containing the
prepackaged property. This library is a set of modules containing the necessary
properties. These modules may also have parameters to set different options or bit
width.
Data Signal Stability
Thefollowing assertion is generated for the
6/6/2019 condition
1 Clock that data signals must be stable
Domain Crossing
while the control signal is asserted (from source of control path asserted until target of
control path deasserted):
bind top aep_assert_data_stable #( 2, "Error : CDC data signal S must
be stable while control signal is asserted") CDC06_test_v_40 (ck2, rst,
DataIn, CtrlSource, CtrlTarget);
Grey Coding
The following assertion is generated by the rule that checks if two or more signals
are gray coded (for example, multi-bit control signals).
bind top aep_assert_gray_coding #( BitWidth, "Error : multibit control
signals must be gray coded") CDC08_test_v_40 (ck1, rst, CtrlSig );
Detailed Explanations for Rules NTL_CDC05 and

NTL_CDC07
Both of these rules check a common CDC scenario - called the "re-convergence of
synchronized signals".
As explained earlier, loss of correlation can also occur when two apparently independent
signals are synchronized separately, but ultimately fed into the same logic. This
scenario, sometimes dubbed re-convergence, is especially difficult to detect by manual
inspection of the synchronization schemes during design review.
Another form of correlation loss can occur when a signal has fan-outs into multiple
synchronizers. The two branches of the signal can have different delays; the electrical
and routing effects can also cause different delays in the clocks going to the two
synchronizers. Therefore, if the two synchronizers sample their inputs at different times
then the two copies of the signal can be skewed by a cycle and no longer correlated.
To prevent these correlation loss scenarios, Leda has two CDC rules that confirm that
there is no "re-convergence of synchronized signals" in the design.
The first one "NTL_CDC05" confirms that two signals synchronized in two different
synchronizers (thus forming two different CDC elements) never converge.
On the other-hand "NTL_CDC07" confirms that CDC paths synchronized by the same
synchronizer (thus grouped in a single CDC element) never converges after being
synchronized in the target clock domain.
Examples:
For CDC05 rule, two one bit signals are synchronized by two 2-FF synchronizers in two
different target domains (CLK2 and CLK3), thus forms two different CDC elements. After
the synchronization is done, these two signals converge in an AND gate.
For CDC07 rule, a single bit signal has fan-outs two 2-FF synchronizers. After the
synchronization is done (in the single target domain CLK2 thus forming a single CDC
element), these two signals converge in an AND gate. The HDL codes and related CDC
error messages are given as follows.
For more information about these rules, see the chapter "Clock Domain Crossing Rules".
CDC Tcl Interface

The following is the command reference information for built-in Tcl commands that you
can use to manage the CDC rules:
set_cdc_ignored_path
Use the set_cdc_ignored_path command to specify a path to be ignored by CDC

analysis.
Syntax
set_cdc_ignored_path [-from source_ff_name]
6/6/2019
\
[-to target_ff_name]
Arguments
-from Specify the source flip-flop name.
-to Specify the target flip-flop name.
Although -from and -to are optional, at least one of the options must be used. If you
don't specify any one of the options, then it's value is considered as 'any'. For example:
set_cdc_ignored_path -from top.rst
For the above command, any CDC path from top.rst will be ignored.
set_cdc_synchronizer
Use the set_cdc_synchronizer command to specify a synchronizer cell.
Syntax
set_cdc_synchronizer -name name \

[-synchro_type type [-synchro_parameters {..} ] ]
Arguments
-name Specify the name of the synchronizer cell.
-synchro_type Specify the synchronizer type. It can take one of the
following values:
simple (for flip-flop synchronizers).
logic (for logic synchronizers).
complex (for complex synchronizers).
fifo (for fifo synchronizers).
handshake (for handshake synchronizers).
-synchro_parameters Specify the parameters corresponding to the synchronizer.
For all the specified synchronizers, the parameters are a list of strings that specify some
values. The following table lists the parameters that are applicable for various
synchronizers.
Table 2: Parameters of different synchronizers

Parameters applicable Parameters applicable Parameters applicable to
to all synchronizers to FIFO synchronizer handshake synchronizer
-source_clock -source_clock -source_clock
-target_clock -target_clock -target_clock
-handshake kind (can be
-write_signal pushhanshake or
pullhandshake)
-read_signal -transmit_signal
-fifo_full -receive_signal
-fifo_empty
-write_reset_signal
-write_read_signal
-data_signal
set_cdc_group
Use the set_cdc_group command to override the automatic CDC inference. This
command enables you to create a CDC element and specify additional information like
synchronization type. In other words, it allows a complete specification of the CDC
information from you. This command is generated by the dump mode of the CDC. After
CDC inference in dump mode, all the inferred information is dumped using the
set_cdc_group command. If you want to modify the inferred information or grouping of
the different paths, you need to edit the dumped file and adapt the information.
The rules concerning reconvergent paths and
6/6/2019
gray coding of control paths are highly
dependent on the grouping. So, make sure that the groups are formed correctly. In
addition to the automatic inference algorithm and the possibility to define synchronizer,
Leda also offers the flexibility to fully customize the CDC information.
The CDC inference engine first uses the information from the set_cdc_group command.
If this information is incomplete, then it tries to automatically complete it. When the
command set_cdc_group contains only the -paths directive and no -synchronizer
information, then the synchronizer is recognized automatically. Similarly, if you provide
only the synchronizer type information, then the parameters (specially for fifo and
handshake) is computed automatically.
Syntax
set_cdc_group -name group_name \

[-synchro_type type [-synchro_parameters {...} ] ] \
-paths { {s1 t1} {s2 t2}...{sn tn} }
Arguments
-name Specify the name of the synchronizer cell.
-synchro_type Specify the type of synchronizer. It can take the
following values:
simple (for flip-flop synchronizers).
logic (for logic synchronizers).
complex (for complex synchronizers).
fifo (for fifo synchronizers).
handshake (for handshake synchronizers).
-synchro_parameters Specify the parameters corresponding to the synchronizer.
-paths Specify the set of paths, which is just a collection of tuples representing
different paths.
set_cdc_input_delay
Use the set_cdc_input_delay command to specify a clock that controls the module pins
or ports specified with the option -pin_port_list. This helps you to analyze the CDC issue
in a given module and focus on debugging in that module.
Syntax
set_cdc_input_delay -clock user_clock_name -delay_value delay_value \

-pin_port_list {PIN_PORT_LIST}
Arguments
-clock Specify the clock name.
-delay_value Specify the delay value. Leda actually discards this value
and so you can specify any value.
-pin_port_list Specify the list of pins or ports that the clock controls
For example, if you have a module SYNCHHRONIZER_MODULE that contains the

synchronizer as follows:
module SYNCHRONIZER_MODULE (out_data, in_data, clk);
You can instantiate this module in a design and specify a new clock, say "clk1" that
controls the pin in_data. To avoid debugging the whole design and to just focus on this
synchronizer module, you need to specify the set_cdc_input_delay command in the
leda_clock_file.tcl as follows:
set_cdc_input_delay -clock clk1 -delay_value 1 -pin_port_list
{SYNCHRONIZED_MODULE.in_data}
set_cdc_output_delay
Use the set_cdc_output_delay command to specify the relationship between an output

pin and a clock pin of a hard IP cell.
create_cdc_clock
Use the command to specify a given pin of the cell as a clock pin of a hard IP cell.
Example
The usage
of the
commands
is as
follows:
You can
specify
hard IP
blocks and
provide
information
about the
relation
between
clocks and
data ports
of the
block. A
cell which
is
instantiated
from a
library and
does not
contain any
statement (only port definition) is considered a hard IP cell. In such case, for efficient
CDC checking, you can specify the relationship between data pins and clock pins.
The command to specify a given pin of the cell as a clock pin of a hard IP cell is as
follows:
create_cdc_clock -name clock_name source_objects
The following commands allow creating a relationship between a clock pin and a data
pin.
set_cdc_input_delay -clock clock_name delay_value port_pin_list
set_cdc_output_delay -clock clock_name delay_value port_pin_list
If such information is provided to the checker then efficient CDC checking can be
performed even on designs using hard IP. Else, no checking will be possible since no
connectivity information is available.
For example, the previous illustration shows a hard IP block with two clocks, two input
ports, and two output ports:
Here the connection from O1 to the D input of the third flip-flop has a CDC issue that
could be detected if you provide the following relations:
create_cdc_clock -name CK1 Top.HardCell.CK1

create_cdc_clock -name CK2 Top.HardCell.CK2
set_cdc_output_delay -clock CK1 10 Top.HardCell.O1
set_cdc_output_delay -clock CK2 10 Top.HardCell.O2
If the cell has only one clock, all the pins will be considered to be controlled by this
clock. The clock will be detected automatically by the clock inference if it is connected to
other clock signals in the design.
extract_cdc_info
Use the extract_cdc_info command to run the CDC inference within the Tcl shell mode in
order to refine the different parameters for this inference.
Syntax
extract_cdc_info
You need to execute this command only after elaboration. You can then use the
report_cdc_info command to visualize the inferred CDC elements. You may execute this20/21
https://filebox.ece.vt.edu/~athanas/4514/ledadoc/html/pol_cdc.html
command many times, but it is important 1toClock
6/6/2019
run the clear_cdc_info command before any
Domain Crossing
call.
report_cdc_info
Use the report_cdc_info command to print the inferred CDC elements on the console or
to a file.
Syntax
report_cdc_info [-file filename]

Arguments
-file Specify the file name.
This command reports all the CDC elements set using the command set_cdc_group
syntax. This allows you to visualize the inferred information.
When you redirect the output of this command to a file, the console does not display any
information.
You can customize and source this file from the tcl_shell or the design_config file to have
a clean CDC inference.
clear_cdc_info
Use the clear_cdc_info command to clear all the inferred CDC informations.
Syntax
clear_cdc_info
In the Tcl shell mode, you may be interested to try several parameters until you get the
correct CDC inference. In order to do this incrementally, you can call the clear_cdc_info
command to reset everything and start the inference with new parameters.
set_cdc_parameter
Use the set_cdc_parameter command to specify a value for the parameters for CDC
inference.
Syntax
set_cdc_parameter [-parameter parameter_name] [-value value]

Arguments
-parameter Specify the parameter.
-value Specify the value for the parameter.
The following parameters shall be used with this command:
NB_FFS_FOR_SYNCHRONIZER - Use this parameter to specify the number of

flip-flops to be used for synchronization. The minimum value of this parameter
is 2. The default value is 2.
ALLOW_BUF_INV_IN_SYNC_FFS - This parameter is used to specify if the path
between the synchronizing flip-flops contain buffers or inverters. If set to 1,
the path between the synchronizing flip-flops may contain buffers or inverters.
The default value is 1.
MAX_NB_PATHS - This parameter is used to specify the maximum number of
path allowed in a valid CDC Element. Above this number, the CDC element is
marked invalid and not taken into account by any CDC checks.
MAX_NB_DISPLAYED_PATHS - This parameter is used to specify the maximum
paths to be displayed in a single CDC violation. The default value is 10.
MAX_SYNCHRONIZATION_DEPTH - The CDC Inference algorithm explores the
influence of control signals to find the controlled paths. This parameter is used
to controls the maximum sequential depth to be explored by Leda. The default
value of this parameter is set to 4, to allow Leda to detect all kinds of
synchronizers. In a design using logic synchronizers, it is recommended to
limit this number to 2 or 1.

Clock Domain Crossing

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Clock Domain Crossing

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

6/6/2019 1 Clock Domain Crossing

This chapter is organized in the following sections:

Background - Prepares the background required for further discussions.

Figure 2: Setup and hold time of a Flip-flop

However, if some input (say d in

Example - Consider the 1-bit CDC

Figure 3: Meta-stability scenario

In a multi-clock design, meta-stability is inevitable, but there are certain design

Figure 4: A 2-FF synchronizer

Synchronization of Control Signals with 2-FF Synchronizers

However, note that the meta-stability is a probabilistic phenomenon. The meta-stable

Input Data Stability to Avoid Data Loss

A synchronizer circuit ensures avoiding propagation of meta-stability into the destination

Incoherence (For Vector CDC Control Signals)

Figure 6: Scenario indicating Data Incoherence

Synchronization of CDC Data Signals

One of the challenges in designing a multi-clock based system is to enable correct

Using MUX based synchronizers.

Passing Data through MUX Synchronizer

Figure 7: A MUX synchronizer

Handshaking Data between Clock Domains

Figure 8: A Handshake Synchronizer

For many open-ended

Passing Data by FIFO between Clock Domains

Figure 9: A dual-clock FIFO Synchronizer

Sometimes, you may specify

Figure 10: User-defined Synchronizer

Structural Analysis to Identify Structural Defects Before and After

Convergence in the Crossover Path

Using combinational elements in a CDC path before synchronization can lead to

Figure 11: Glitch propagation due to convergence in CDC Path

Divergence in the Crossover Path

Figure 12: Divergence in the crossover path

Figure 14: The simplest form of re-convergence

a. NTL_CDC01 - Reports all the unsynchronized CDC paths in the design.

Determination and Validation of Appropriate Properties for Every

Control signal stability assertions

Control signal stability assertions

Control signal stability assertions

Control signal stability assertions

Leda - CDC Flow

Figure 15: The complete Leda CDC flow

Automatically Generated CDC Assertions

Figure 16: Flip-flop Synchronizers

Figure 17: MUX synchronizers

Handshake Synchronizers (Push)

Figure 18: Handshake synchronizers

1. Input Data Stability for the m-flip-flop synchronizers

previous transfer is de-asserted in the source clock (sclk) domain.

The checks for Pull synchronizers are similar.

Dual Clock FIFO Synchronizers

The producer never writes when the FIFO is full.

Figure 19: FIFO Based Synchronizer

No Load on Full & No Read on Empty

Order and Data Preservation

disable iff (!wrst_n || !rrst_n)

A_p_data_integrity: assert property (p_data_integrity);

Gray Code Encoding for Vector Control Signals

Figure 20: Multi-bit Data Transfer

Once such multi-

CDC AEP Rule Usage

NTL_CDC06 - Indicates that FF synchronizers have been used in the design.

the FIFO read/write pointers.

Naming Convention for Automatically Generated CDC