- 96 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

Hierarchical Defect-Oriented T est G eneration

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

REASON Tutorial Sofia, May 29, 2004

Raimund Ubar

Tallinn Technical University

D&T Laboratory

Estonia

- How toimprove the testing quality at increasing complexities of today's systems?
- Two main trends: defect-oriented test and high-level modelling
- Both are caused by the increasing complexities of systems based on deep-submicron technologies

- The complexity problems in testing digital systems are handled by raising the abstraction levels from gate to register-transfer level (RTL) instruction set architecture (ISA)or behavioral levels
- To handle defects in circuits implemented in deep-submicron technologies, new fault models and defect-oriented test methods should be used
- Trends to high-level modelling and defect-orientation are opposite
- As a promising compromise and solution is:to combine hierarchical approach with defect orientation
- Decision Diagrams serve as a good tool forhierarchical modelling of defects in digital systems

- Introduction to Digital Test (3)
- How to improve test quality at increasing complexity of systems (11)
- High-level modelling and defect-orientation (6)
- Decision Diagrams - beyond BDDs (8)
- Hierarchical test generation (11)
- General concepts
- Test generation for RT Level systems
- Test generation for Microprocessors

- Conclusions

How to succeed?

Try too hard!

How to fail?

Try too hard!

(From American Wisdom)

Cost of quality

Cost

Cost of

testing

100%

Test coverage function

Cost of

the fault

Time

Conclusion:

“The problem of testing

can only be contained

not solved”

T.Williams

Quality

Optimum

test / quality

0%

100%

Time can be your best friend

or your worst enemy

(Ray Charles)

Paradox:

264 input patterns (!)

for 32-bit accumulator

will be not enough.

A short will change the circuit

into sequential one,

and you will need because of that

265 input patterns

Paradox:

Mathematicians counted that Intel 8080

needed for exhaustive testing 37 (!) years

Manufacturer did it by 10 seconds

Majority of functions will never activated

during the lifetime of the system

Y = F(x1, x2, x3)

Bridging fault

State q

0

y

x1

&

1

&

x2

*

x3

1

Y = F(x1, x2, x3,q)

The best place to start is

with a good title.

Then build

a song around it.

(Wisdom of country music)

Paradox:

To generate a test

for a block in a system,

the computer

needed

2 days and 2 nights

An engineer

did it by hand

with 15 minutes

So, why

computers?

Sea of gates

&

Sequence of 216 bits

16 bit

counter

1

System

Testing of functions:

1

2

Combinational circuit under test

0%

93,75%

n

87,5%

4. pat.

Truth table

Faulty functions covered by 1. pattern

3. pattern

Patterns

Functions

75%

2n-1

1

00…000 00…001 00…010

…

11…111

01 01 01…101 00 11 00…011 0000 11…111

…

000000…111

2

Faulty functions covered by 2. pattern

Number of patterns

tested

50%!

2n

2n

2

Number of functions

50%

1

Testing of structural faults:

1

2

Combinational circuit under test

n

Not tested faults

4. pat.

Fault coverage

3. pat.

100%

2. pattern

Faults covered by 1. pattern

Number of patterns

4

Testing of functions:

Testing of structural faults:

0%

93,75%

87,5%

4. pat.

Not tested faults

4. pat.

Faulty functions covered by 1. pattern

3. pattern

3. pat.

75%

Faulty functions covered by 2. pattern

2. pattern

Faults covered by 1. pattern

100% will be reached when all faults from the fault list are covered

100% will be reached onlyafter 2ntest patterns

- Introduction to Digital Test
- How to improve test quality at increasing complexity of systems
- High-level modelling and defect-orientation
- Decision Diagrams (beyond BDDs)
- Hierarchical test generation
- General concepts
- Test generation for RT Level systems
- Test generation for Microprocessors

- Conclusions

Problems:

- Traditional low-level test generation and fault simulation methods and tools for digital systems have lost their importancebecause of the complexityreasons
- Traditional Stuck-at Fault (SAF) model does not quarantee the qualityfor deep-submicron technologies
New solutions:

- The complexity can bereduced by raising the abstraction levels from gate to RTL, ISA, and behavioral levels
- But this moves us even more away from the real life of defects (!)

- To handle adequately defects in deep-submicron technologies, new fault models and defect-oriented test generation methods should be used
- But, this is increasing even more the complexity (!)

- To get out from the deadlock, these two opposite trends should be combined into hierarchical approaches

Defects, errors and faults

- An instance of an incorrect operation of the system being tested is referred to as an error
- The causes of the observed errors may be design errors or physical faults -defects
- Physical faults do not allow a direct mathematical treatment of testing and diagnosis
- The solution is to deal with fault models

System

Defect

Component

Fault

Error

Stuck-at-1

Broken (change of the function)

Bridging

Stuck-open NewState

Stuck-on (change of the function)

Short (change of the function)

Stuck-off (change of the function)

Stuck-at-0

SAF-model is not able to cover all the transistor level defects

How to model transistor defects ?

A transistor fault causes a change in a logic function not representable by SAF model

Function:

y

Faulty function:

x1

x4

Short

0 – defect d is missing

1 – defect d is present

d=

Defect variable:

x2

Generic function with defect:

x5

x3

Mapping the physical defect onto the logic level by solving the equation:

Function:

Faulty function:

Generic function with defect:

y

x1

x4

Short

Test calculation by Boolean derivative:

x2

x5

x3

Full 100% Stuck-at-Fault-Test is not able to detect the short:

Functional fault

The full SAF test

is not covering any of the patterns

able to detect

the given transistor defect

Fault-free

Faulty

Constraints calculation:

d = 1, if the defect is present

Component with defect:

Constraints:

Component F(x1,x2,…,xn)

y

Wd

Defect

Fault model:

(dy,Wd), (dy,{Wkd})

Logical constraints

NOR gate

Stuck-on

VDD

x1

RN

x2

Y

x1

x2

RP

VSS

Condition of the fault potential detecting:

Conducting path for “10”

NOR gate

Test sequence is needed: 00,10

Stuck-off (open)

tx1 x2 y

1 0 0 1

2 1 0 1

VDD

x1

x2

Y

x1

x2

VSS

No conducting path

from VDD to VSS for “10”

x*k

xk

d

Example:

Bridging faultbetween leadsxkandxl

The conditionmeans that

in order to detect the short between leadsxkand xl

on the leadxk

we have to assign toxkthe value 1 and toxlthe value 0.

xl

xk*= f(xk,xl,d)

Wired-AND model

Bridging fault causes a feedback loop:

Example:

A short between leads xkand xlchanges the combinational circuit into sequential one

x1

y

&

x2

&

x3

Equivalent faulty circuit:

x1

y

&

&

x2

x3

tx1 x2 x3 y

1 0 1 0

2 1 1 1 1

Sequential constraints:

&

Mapping

High level

k

WFk

Component Low level

WSk

Bridging fault

Surrounding

Mapping

How to improve the test quality at the increasing complexity of systems?

First step to solution:

Functional fault model

was introduced

as a means

for mapping physical defects

from the transistor or layout level

to the logic level

System

- Introduction to Digital Test
- How to improve test quality at increasing complexity of systems
- High-level modelling and defect-orientation
- Decision Diagrams (beyond BDDs)
- Hierarchical test generation
- General concepts
- Test generation for RT Level systems
- Test generation for Microprocessors

- Conclusions

RTL statement:

K: (If T,C) RD F(RS1, RS2, … RSm), N

Components (variables)

of the statement:

RT level faults:

K K’- label faults

T T’- timing faults

C C’- logical condition faults

RD RD - register decoding faults

RS RS - data storage faults

F F’- operation decoding faults

- data transfer faults

N - control faults

(F) (F)’ - data manipulation faults

K- label

T- timing condition

C- logical condition

RD- destination register

RS- source register

F- operation (microoperation)

- data transfer

N- jump to the next statement

Decoder:

- instead of correct line, incorrect is activated

- in addition to correct line, additional line is activated

- no lines are activated

Multiplexer (n inputs log2 n control lines):

- stuck-at - 0 (1) on inputs

- another input (instead of, additional)

- value, followed by its complement

- value, followed by its complement on a line whose address differs in 1 bit

Memory fault models:

- one or more cells stuck-at - 0 (1)

- two or more cells coupled

Functional fault model

Dedicated functional fault model for multiplexer:

- stuck-at-0 (1) on inputs,
- another input (instead of, additional)
- value, followed by its complement
- value, followed by its complement on a line whose address differs in one bit

Test description

Functional

Structural

Higher Level Module

approach

approach

ki

k

Component Lower level

WFki

S

Test

F

W

k

WFk

WSki

System

Network

Bridging fault

F

W

of modules

k

Surrounding

S

Test

W

F

k

ki

Interpretation of WFk:

- asa test

on the lower level

- asa functional fault

on the higher level

Module

Network

F

W

ki

of gates

d

W

Test

F

ki

ki

Circuit

e

Gat

Hierarchical Defect-Oriented Test Analysis

BDDs

DDs

- Introduction to Digital Test
- How to improve test quality at increasing complexity of systems
- High-level modelling and defect-orientation
- Decision Diagrams (beyond BDDs)
- Hierarchical test generation
- General concepts
- Test generation for RT Level systems
- Test generation for Microprocessors

- Conclusions

y

1

Functional BDD

x1

1

0

x2

x3

Simulation:

x4

x5

01 1 0 1 0 0

Boolean derivative:

x6

x7

0

Elementary BDDs:

AND

x1

x1

x2

x1

x2

x3

y

&

x2

y

x3

+

Adder

x3

x1

OR

x2

x1

y

1

y

x1

x2

x3

x3

x2

x2

x3

x3

NOR

x1

x2

y

x1

x2

x3

1

x3

Structurally Synthesized BDDs:

DD-library:

y

a

b

Given circuit:

x1

x1

x22

a

a

b

x21

1

x2

y

x21

x3

&

x22

1

SSBDD

x3

Superposition of DDs

b

y

x22

x22

a

y

x1

Compare to

x3

x3

Superposition of Boolean functions:

x21

b

a

Macro

1

y

&

d

2

73

6

&

71

a

1

&

e

3

72

7

b

4

5

1

y

&

5

73

c

6

71

72

2

0

&

&

&

Structurally synthesized BDD

for a subcircuit (macro)

To each node

of the SSBDD

a signal path in the circuit corresponds

y = cyey = cyey = x6,e,yx73,e,y deybey

y = x6x73 ( x1 x2 x71) ( x5 x72)

Macro

1

&

d

2

&

71

a

&

e

3

72

7

b

4

y

&

5

73

c

6

&

&

&

The nodes represent signal paths through gates

Two possible faults of a DD-node represent all the stuck-at faultsalong the signal path

y

73

6

1

5

1

71

72

2

123 4 5 6 7 y

1 1 0 0 1 1

0

Test pattern:

R

Superposition of High-Level DDs:

A single DD for a subcircuit

2

0

y

#

0

4

1

R

2

M1

0

0

2

y

y

R

+ R

3

1

1

2

R2

1

IN + R

2

1

IN

2

R

1

3

0

y

R

* R

2

R2 +M3

1

2

1

IN* R

2

M2

Instead of simulating

all the components in the circuit,

only a single path in the DD should be traced

- Terminal nodesrepresent:
- RTL-statement faults:
- data storage,
- data transfer,
- data manipulation faults

High-level DDs (RT-level):

- Nonterminal nodes represent:
- RTL-statement faults:
- label,
- timing condition,
- logical condition, register decoding,
- operation decoding,
- control faults

Hierarchical Diagnostic Modeling

High-Level DD-s

Boolean differential algebra

BDD-s

Two trends:

- high-level modeling
- to cope with complexity

- low-level modeling
- to cope with physicaldefects,to reach higher acuracy

- Introduction to Digital Test
- How to improve test quality at increasing complexity of systems
- High-level modelling and defect-orientation
- Decision Diagrams (beyond BDDs)
- Hierarchical test generation
- General concepts
- Test generation for RT Level systems
- Test generation for Microprocessors

- Conclusions

- In high-level symbolic test generation the test properties of components are often described in form of fault-propagation modes
- These modes will usually contain:
- a list of controlsignals such that the data on input lines is reproduced without logic transformation at the output lines - I-path, or
- a list of control signals that provide one-to-one mapping between data inputs and data outputs - F-path

- The I-paths and F-paths constitute connections for propagating test vectors from input ports (or any controllable points) to the inputs of the Module Under Test (MUT) and to propagate the test response to an output port (or any observable points)
- In the hierarchical approach, top-down and bottom-up strategies can be distinguished

A

System

Bottom-up approach:

- Pre-calculated tests for components generated on low-level will be assembled at a higher level
- It fits well to the uniform hierarchical approach to test, which covers both component testing and communication network testing
- However, the bottom-up algorithms ignore the incompletenessproblem
- The constraints imposed by other modules and/or the network structure may prevent the local test solutions from being assembled into a global test
- The approach would work well only if the the corresponding testability demands were fulfilled

a

D

B

C

c

a,c,D

fixed

x - free

a

D

A = ax

D: B = bx

C = cx

c

Module

Top-down approach:

A

System

- Top-down approach has been proposed to solve the test generation problem by deriving environmental constraints for low-level solutions.
- This method is more flexible since it does not narrow the search for the global test solution to pregenerated patterns for the system modules
- However the method is of little use when the system is still under development in a top-down fashion, or when “canned” local tests for modules or cores have to be applied

a’

D’

B

c’

C

a’,c’,D’

fixed

x - free

a’x

d’x

A = a’x

D’ = d’x

C = c’x

c’x

Module

R

2

0

y

#

0

4

y

y

y

y

1

1

2

3

4

R

2

0

0

a

2

R

·

c

y

y

R

+

R

1

3

1

M

+

1

2

1

e

1

·

IN

+

R

M

R

2

3

2

1

b

·

IN

*

M

·

2

IN

·

2

d

R

1

3

0

y

R

*

R

2

1

2

1

IN*

R

2

Hierarhical test generation with DDs:Scanning test(defect-oriented)

Single path activation in a single DD

Data function R1* R2is tested

Decision Diagram

Data path

HL Test program:

Control: y1 y2 y3 y4 = x032

Data: For all specified pairs of(R1, R2)

Low level test data (constraints W)

y

y

y

y

1

2

3

4

a

R

·

c

1

M

+

1

e

·

M

R

3

2

b

·

*

M

·

2

IN

·

d

High-level test generation with DDs: Conformity test (High-level faults)

Decision Diagram

Multiple paths activation in a single DD

Control function y3 is tested

R

2

0

y

#

0

4

Data path

1

R

2

0

0

2

y

y

R

+

R

3

1

1

2

1

IN

+

R

2

1

IN

2

R

1

3

0

y

R

*

R

2

1

2

1

IN*

R

Control: For D = 0,1,2,3: y1 y2 y3y4 = 00D2

Data: Solution of R1+ R2 IN R1 R1* R2

Test program:

2

Activating high-level faults:

&

&

&

Component F(x1,x2,…,xn)

y

Activate

a path

Test generation for a bridging fault:

Bridge between leads 73 and 6

Wd

Defect

Macro

1

1

d

1

&

2

a

&

71

D

D

- Fault manifestation:
- Wd= x6x7= 1: x6=0, x7=1,
- x7= D
- Fault propagation:
- x2=1, x1=1, b =1, c =1
- Line justification:
- b = 1: x5= 0

D

&

e

3

72

7

b

1

4

1

y

D

D

&

5

73

c

1

0

6

Wd

Macro

1

&

d

2

&

71

a

&

e

3

72

7

b

4

y

&

5

73

c

6

&

&

&

DefectWd manifestation:

Wd= x6x7= 1: x6=0, x7=1, x7= D Functional Fault dx7 propagation:

x1=1, x2=1, x5=0

y

No fault: dx7 =0: x7=1

73

6

(dx7,Wd)

1

5

1

Bridge between leads 7 and 6:(dx7,Wd)

71

72

2

Test pattern for the node 71 at the constraint Wd= x6x7= 1:

Defect: dx7 =1: x7=0

123 4 5 6 7 y

1 10 01 1

0

I1:MVI A,DA IN

I2:MOV R,AR A

I3:MOV M,ROUT R

I4:MOV M,AOUT A

I5:MOV R,MR IN

I6:MOV A,MA IN

I7:ADD RA A + R

I8:ORA RA A R

I9:ANA RA A R

I10:CMA A,DA A

High-Level DDs for a microprocessor (example):

DD-model of the

microprocessor:

Instruction

set:

1,6

A

I

IN

3

2,3,4,5

I

R

OUT

A

4

7

A + R

A

8

2

A R

I

A

R

9

A R

5

IN

10

A

1,3,4,6-10

R

High-Level DD-based structureofthe microprocessor (example):

DD-model of the

microprocessor:

1,6

A

I

IN

IN

3

R

2,3,4,5

I

R

OUT

A

4

7

A + R

I

A

OUT

8

2

A R

I

A

R

9

A R

5

A

IN

10

A

1,3,4,6-10

R

Scanning test program for adder:

Instruction sequence T = I5 (R)I1 (A)I7 I4

for all needed pairs of (A,R)

DD-model of the

microprocessor:

1,6

A

I

IN

I4

3

OUT

2,3,4,5

I

R

OUT

A

I7

A

4

7

A + R

I1

A

A

8

R

IN(2)

2

A R

I

A

R

I5

R

9

A R

5

IN(1)

IN

Time:

10

t

t - 1

t - 2

t - 3

A

1,3,4,6-10

Observation Test Load

R

Conformity test program for decoder:

Instruction sequence T = I5 I1 DI4

for all DI1 -I10 at given A,R,IN

DD-model of the

microprocessor:

1,6

A

I

IN

Data generation:

3

2,3,4,5

I

R

OUT

A

4

7

A + R

A

8

2

A R

I

A

R

9

A R

5

IN

10

A

1,3,4,6-10

Data IN,A,R are generated so that

the values of all functions were different

R

- Physical defects can be formally mapped to the logic level by Boolean differential calculus
- Functional fault model is a universal means for mapping test results from lower levels to higher levels, giving a formal basis for hierarchical approaches to test generation and fault simulation
- Decision diagrams is a suitable tool which can be used successfully both, on the logic level, and also on higher register transfer or behavioral levels

- S.Mourad, Y.Zorian. Principles of Testing Electronic Systems. J.Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 2000, 420 p.
- M.L.Bushnell, V.D.Agrawal. Essentials of Electronic testing. Kluwer Acad. Publishers, 2000, 690 p.
- M. Abramovici et. al. Digital Systems Testing & Testable Designs. Computer Science Press, 1995, 653 p.
- S. Minato. Binary Decision Diagrams and Applications for VLSI CAD. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996, 141 p.
- R.Ubar. Test Synthesis with Alternative Graphs. IEEE Design and Test of Computers. Spring, 1996, pp.48-59.
- J.Raik, R.Ubar. Fast Test Pattern Generation for Sequential Circuits Using Decision Diagram Representations. JETTA: Theory and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 213-226, 2000.
- R.Ubar, W.Kuzmicz, W.Pleskacz, J.Raik. Defect-Oriented Fault Simulation and Test Generation in Digital Circuits. ISQED’02, San Jose, California, March 26-28, 2001, pp.365-371.
- T.Cibáková, M.Fischerová, E.Gramatová, W.Kuzmicz, W.Pleskacz, J.Raik, R.Ubar. Hierarchical Test Generation with Real Defects Coverage. Pergamon Press. J. of Microelectronics Reliability, Vol. 42, 2002, pp.1141-114.

- European Projects:
- EEMCN, FUTEG, ATSEC, SYTIC, VILAB, REASON, eVIKINGS II

- Special thanks to:
- EU project IST-2000-30193 REASON
- Cooperation partners: IISAS Bratislava, TU Warsaw
- Colleagues: J.Raik, A.Jutman, E.Ivask, E.Orasson a.o. (TU Tallinn)

- Contact data:
- Tallinn Technical University
- Computer Engineering Department
- Address: Raja tee 15, 12618 Tallinn, Estonia
- Tel.: +372 620 2252, Fax: +372 620 2253
- E-mail: raiub@pld.ttu.ee
- www.ttu.ee/ˇraiub/