Hi, I am having some trouble finding out where the levels of logic are in my critical paths on a Stratix10 design in Quartus Prime 21.4 Pro Edition. For example, in Timequest, the Statistics show 1 level of logic for a particular path. However, the datapath itself seems to contain many more levels of logic: In the table, rows 3 to 18 contain elements of type "IC" or "CELL" and "Combinational cell". - Counting "CELL" types: 12 logic levels? - Counting "CELL" types in different XY locations: 4 logic levels? However much I tried, I could not figure out how to arrive at 1 level of logic. Unfortunately I was not able to use the schematic view as this path is in an encrypted node. Is there a document that explains how the number of logic levels are calculated? What is the way to count them from the STA report? Thanks!

That is strange. Like you say, normally logic levels are counted as jumps between cell delays and interconnect delays. Maybe it's because this is inside encrypted IP. Do you see multiple paths like this? Or paths that do display the number of logic levels correctly?

Yes, I see multiple paths like this. So far, all the paths with incorrect logic level numbers seem to belong to encrypted IP. And yes, I do see paths with the correct number of logic levels. The one shown below makes sense that it has 2 logic levels. Interestingly, those are located in unencrypted nodes. I am able to view and verify the logic levels in the schematic view as well. I guess there may be a bug (or intended feature) in the path statistics for paths in encrypted IP? Thanks

Hello,Could you share your test case design with us so that we can reproduce it on our side and see the root problem of it? You can choose to share it or not and if yes, is it privately or publicly by replying here? Just let me know.Regards,Aqid Ayman

Hi, Thank you for following up on this. Unfortunately, as it is a customer's design, we are unable to share it. If the theory that this incorrect logic levels number is reported for encrypted IP, maybe can you try a small testcase containing encrypted IP? Thanks!

Hello,Alright, noted that.The reason why I asked for the customer's design is to see if the error was observed from my end also or not. It will be more efficient to debug the issue.Regards,Aqid Ayman

How to count levels of logic in timing paths?

15 Replies

sstrell
Super Contributor
4 years ago
That is strange. Like you say, normally logic levels are counted as jumps between cell delays and interconnect delays. Maybe it's because this is inside encrypted IP. Do you see multiple paths like this? Or paths that do display the number of logic levels correctly?
- harnhua
  New Contributor
  4 years ago
  Yes, I see multiple paths like this.
  
  So far, all the paths with incorrect logic level numbers seem to belong to encrypted IP.
  
  And yes, I do see paths with the correct number of logic levels. The one shown below makes sense that it has 2 logic levels.
  
  Interestingly, those are located in unencrypted nodes. I am able to view and verify the logic levels in the schematic view as well.
  
  I guess there may be a bug (or intended feature) in the path statistics for paths in encrypted IP?
  
  Thanks
AqidAyman_Altera
Regular Contributor
4 years ago
Hello,

Could you share your test case design with us so that we can reproduce it on our side and see the root problem of it?

You can choose to share it or not and if yes, is it privately or publicly by replying here? Just let me know.

Regards,
Aqid Ayman
- harnhua
  New Contributor
  4 years ago
  Hi,
  
  Thank you for following up on this.
  
  Unfortunately, as it is a customer's design, we are unable to share it.
  
  If the theory that this incorrect logic levels number is reported for encrypted IP, maybe can you try a small testcase containing encrypted IP?
  
  Thanks!
AqidAyman_Altera
Regular Contributor
4 years ago
Hello,

Alright, noted that.

The reason why I asked for the customer's design is to see if the error was observed from my end also or not. It will be more efficient to debug the issue.

Regards,
Aqid Ayman
harnhua
New Contributor
4 years ago
Thank you for trying to help.

Please let me know if you can reproduce the same issue in any design with encrypted IP.

I will try to get a testcase as well.
AqidAyman_Altera
Regular Contributor
4 years ago
Hello,

Okay, sure. I will update you if I able to reproduce the issue.

Regards,
Aqid Ayman
AqidAyman_Altera
Regular Contributor
4 years ago
Hi,

Do you able to provide the test case?

Regards,
Aqid Ayman
harnhua
New Contributor
4 years ago
Hi,

Thank you for following up on this.

Unfortunately, we have not gotten permission to share this design.
Ryan_S_Intel
New Contributor
4 years ago
I'm guessing the last part, where the node locations increment by 3, e.g. N0, N3, N6, N9... are part of a carry-chain, which are not counted as a single logic level since they are much faster. I'm not sure how they're counted. But with the first part there are definitely distinct hops that should count as more than one. Personally, I've done timing closure on designs for ~20 years and have never found "levels of logic" that useful. There are just too many other things going on, such as carry-chain, fan-out, interconnectedness, etc. that it's not that useful. Plus, in the screen-shot above there is so much more info in the Data Path tab. You have a path with many levels, it crosses three LABs(Y112, Y111, Y109), and looks to be placed and routed really well. If you only had one failing path, maybe getting rid of a lab hop would help close timing, but most likely you have a number of paths, and many similar ones that just barely make timing, whereby squeezing this path down into fewer LABs will probably break another path.

My first question would be why are the two endpoints in ALM registers? Do they have retiming restrictions that prevent Hyper-Retiming? When you run report_timing, click on the -extra_info all and it should give you info about retiming restrictions(plus other fun stuff).
AqidAyman_Altera
Regular Contributor
4 years ago
Hi Harn,

Did you have any feedbacks on the comments by Ryan?

Regards,
Aqid
AqidAyman_Altera
Regular Contributor
4 years ago
Hi Harn,

Did you have any feedbacks on the comments by Ryan?

Regards,
Aqid