My first comment is that I agree with Jack's conclusions. Because C-to-Silicon Compiler's high-level synthesis can transform the same design description in different ways for different applications, SystemC IP is inherently more reusable that RTL IP. I also agree that SystemC can deliver a significantly higher level of abstraction than RTL. Sure, it's possible to write a SystemC design description that's nothing more than RTL in another language, but with training designers can learn how to write untimed, high-level code that enables boosts in abstraction and reusability.
Given the advantages of SystemC-based design, why is it not yet universally adopted? I believe that it's valid to draw a comparison with the rise of RTL-based design in the early 90s. I was a pioneer in that transition, taping out in 1989 what I believe was only the second chip anywhere using a commercial logic-synthesis tool. RTL for simulation and modeling had been around for a number of years previously, but the availability of logic synthesis was the key driver for RTL replacing gate-level schematics for design input.
There were other enabling technologies, including RTL-to-gates equivalence checking, RTL-based design rule checkers, and the availability of commercial RTL design IP. Being able to license proven design IP for a wide array of standard interfaces was a good reason to move to RTL if not already there. Even "star IP" providers such as ARM began offering RTL versions of their cores. My second main point, and the complement to Jack's title, is that the availability of SystemC design IP will be a strong incentive for designers to move up from RTL.
I say "will be" because I don't see a lot of SystemC design IP out there yet. I searched the ChipEstimate site for the keyword "SystemC" and found only a half-dozen listings, several of which appear to be RTL designs with SystemC simulation models. I have little doubt that this will change; logic synthesis was around for several years before the RTL-based IP industry made a significant impact. I expect a similar "chicken and egg" effect with the adoption of C-to-Silicon Compiler and the availability of SystemC design IP.
My final topic is what the transition from RTL to SystemC design means for my world of functional verification. Today, many SystemC designers perform the bulk of their verification at the RTL level, using the output of high-level synthesis. Again, there is a clear comparison with the early days of RTL design, when designers still ran lots of gate-level simulation. This changed over time, and likewise I expect that verification will become more and more centered on the SystemC design description.
Cadence has done a lot of work to ensure that this transition will be painless for our customers, including:
- Extending the Universal Verification Methodology (UVM) to include SystemC models, including SystemC verification IP (VIP) components
- Ensuring that the same UVM testbenches running in Incisive Enterprise Simulator can be used for both SystemC and RTL designs
- Using the same underlying technology in SystemC testbench simulation and in the Cadence Virtual System Platform to ensure consistent behavior
I'll defer to my colleague Jack to forecast the industry's move from RTL to SystemC design in more detail, but it's clear to me that this is happening and that it has a lot in common with the gates-to-RTL transition. EDA vendors worked hard to ensure an easy path for their customers back then, and we're equally committed to evolving our tools and methodologies today for customer success. I'd love to hear from you about SystemC-based design. Are you doing it? Considering it? If not, why not? What can we do to help? I look forward to your comments.
Tom A.
The truth is out there...sometimes it's in a blog