Debugger GUI for Hardware Design Validation
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current hardware design techniques are inefficient due to extensive validation and verification processes, and they fail to effectively address data flow control and protocol logic during the design process, leading to increased time and complexity.
Innovation Solution
A debugger graphical user interface (GUI) system that translates hardware language into a source database, then into a common hardware database, and finally into a logic code model, allowing for improved data flow and construct representation, simulation, and synthesis, while displaying constructs and corresponding waveforms or source code for easier debugging.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Productivity
If current hardware description languages are used for design, then design can be created, but validation and verification consume a large portion of the design schedule
Solution Approach 1:
The design process is segmented into distinct phases with formal verification integrated early in the flow, rather than performed as a separate post-design activity. This allows verification tasks to be distributed and performed incrementally throughout the design process, reducing the overall time dedicated to validation and verification.
Solution Approach 2:
Formal verification methods are applied preliminarily during the design specification and early design phases, before the design is complete. This preliminary verification catches errors early when they are easier and less costly to fix, reducing the need for extensive re-verification later in the design schedule.
2Adaptability or versatility
If current hardware description languages are used, then hardware can be modeled, but data flow control and protocol logic are not effectively addressed
Solution Approach 1:
The enhanced hardware description language incorporates universal constructs that can handle multiple functions including data flow control, protocol logic, and verification specifications within a unified language framework. This eliminates the need for separate languages or tools for different design aspects, reducing overall system complexity while improving adaptability.
Solution Approach 2:
Formal verification constructs act as intermediaries between the hardware design and the verification process, providing a systematic way to specify and verify protocol logic and data flow control requirements. These intermediary constructs bridge the gap between design intent and verification objectives, making complex protocol verification more manageable.
3Reliability
If extensive validation and verification processes are performed, then design accuracy is improved, but design complexity and time increase
Solution Approach 1:
Verification specifications and test cases are developed preliminarily alongside the design, rather than created after design completion. This preliminary development of verification artifacts ensures that verification is integrated into the design process from the beginning, improving accuracy while avoiding the complexity of retrofitting verification later.
Solution Approach 2:
Formal verification provides systematic feedback about design correctness throughout the design process, enabling early detection and correction of errors. This continuous feedback mechanism improves design accuracy incrementally with each verification cycle, reducing the need for extensive final verification while maintaining high reliability.
Data Source
AI summary
A debugger graphical user interface (GUI) system, method, and computer program product are provided. In use, a list of constructs is displayed a first portion of the GUI of the debugger. Further, waveforms corresponding to the constructs or source code corresponding to the constructs is displayed in a second portion of the GUI of the debugger.