Split Routing Unit for Electronic Chip Inter-Layer Connectivity

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current three-dimensional electronic chip architectures face challenges in efficiently connecting functional modules across layers due to saturation of vertical data buses and limitations in router performance, particularly with single routing algorithms and large router sizes.

Innovation Solution

The electronic chip employs split routing units with two routers: a first-level router for intra-layer transmissions and a second-level router for inter-layer transmissions, allowing data to traverse only the smaller first-level router for high transmission rates and low latency, forming networks within and across layers.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If a single common router is used to connect processing units across different layers, then inter-layer connectivity is achieved, but the router size becomes large and performance is limited

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveinter-layer connectivityVSAvoidrouter size

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The routing function is segmented into two levels: first-level routers handle intra-layer routing within each functional module, while second-level routers handle inter-layer routing between functional modules. This segmentation divides the large single router into smaller, specialized routing units that collectively provide the same connectivity functionality with reduced individual complexity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

2Adaptability or versatility

If vertical data buses are used to link routers across layers, then inter-layer routing is enabled, but the data buses become saturated when many data exchanges occur between layers

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveinter-layer routing capabilityVSAvoiddata exchange throughput

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The routing architecture transitions from a single vertical dimension (vertical data buses) to a two-dimensional hierarchy: first-level routers operate within the horizontal plane of each layer, while second-level routers operate at the vertical interface between layers. This dimensional expansion allows parallel routing paths that prevent saturation of any single vertical data bus.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

3Adaptability or versatility

If a single router with multiple connections is used, then comprehensive routing capability is achieved, but transmission rate decreases and latency increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverouting capabilityVSAvoidtransmission rate

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSSpeed

Solution Approach 1:

The routing path is segmented into two stages: first-level routers perform quick intra-layer routing with fewer connections, achieving high transmission rates for local traffic. Second-level routers handle inter-layer routing for traffic requiring layer transitions. This segmentation allows most traffic to be routed quickly at the first level without passing through larger, slower second-level routers.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

Different routing units are assigned different functional qualities: first-level routers are optimized for high-speed intra-layer routing with minimal connections, while second-level routers are optimized for inter-layer routing with connections to vertical data buses. Each routing unit has the specific capabilities needed for its level, improving overall transmission efficiency.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

4Adaptability or versatility

If the router is designed to work with multiple routing algorithms, then versatility is improved, but the router size and complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverouting algorithm compatibilityVSAvoidrouter configuration complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The routing decision process is segmented into two independent stages: first-level routing decisions are made by first-level routers using simple routing logic for intra-layer traffic, while second-level routing decisions are made by second-level routers for inter-layer traffic. This segmentation allows each routing unit to use simpler, algorithm-agnostic logic rather than requiring complex multi-algorithm support in a single router.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentUS8667251B2Electronic chip and integrated circuit including a split routing unit having first-level routers for intra-layer transmissions and second-level routers for inter-layer transmissions and transmissions to the processing units

Publication Date: 2014.03.04 COMMISSARIAT A LENERGIE ATOMIQUE ET AUX ENERGIES ALTERNATIVES

AI summary

This electronic chip includes functional modules each including a single processing unit and a single routing unit (110E) connected to one another, and connections, called routing connections, each of which has at least one end connected to the routing unit of a functional module, where the routing connections connect between themselves the routing units of the functional modules so as to allow routing of data between the processing units of the functional modules.The routing unit (110E) of at least one functional module, called a split routing unit, includes two routers (112E, 114E), called respectively a first-level router and a second-level router, which are connected to one another, where the first-level router is moreover connected to at least two routing connections, and where the second-level router is moreover connected to the processing unit of this functional module and connected to at least one other routing connection.