Formal Methods in System Design

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 114–130 | Cite as

Analog property checkers: a DDR2 case study

Article

Abstract

The formal specification component of verification can be exported to simulation through the idea of property checkers. The essence of this approach is the automatic construction of an observer from the specification in the form of a program that can be interfaced with a simulator and alert the user if the property is violated by a simulation trace. Although not complete, this lighter approach to formal verification has been effectively used in software and digital hardware to detect errors. Recently, the idea of property checkers has been extended to analog and mixed-signal systems.

In this paper, we apply the property-based checking methodology to an industrial and realistic example of a DDR2 memory interface. The properties describing the DDR2 analog behavior are expressed in the formal specification language stl/psl in form of assertions. The simulation traces generated from an actual DDR2 interface design are checked with respect to the stl/psl assertions using the amt tool. The focus of this paper is on the translation of the official (informal and descriptive) specification of two non-trivial DDR2 properties into stl/psl assertions. We study both the benefits and the current limits of such approach.

Keywords

Analog Mixed-signal Monitoring Temporal logic Property checkers Case study 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abarbanel Y, Beer I, Glushovsky L, Keidar S, Wolfsthal Y (2000) FoCs: automatic generation of simulation checkers from formal specifications. In: Proc CAV’00. LNCS, vol 1855. Springer, Berlin, pp 538–542 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Accelera Standard. SystemVerilog 3.1a Language reference manual Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asarin E, Dang T, Frehse G, Girard A, Le Guernic C, Maler O (2006) Recent progress in continuous and hybrid reachability analysis. In: CACSD Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alur R, Etessami K, La Torre S, Peled D (1999) Parametric temporal logic for “model measuring”. In: ICALP’99, pp 159–168 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alur R, Feder T, Henzinger TA (1996) The benefits of relaxing punctuality. J Assoc Comput Mach 43:116–146 MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Al Sammane G, Zaki MH, Dong ZJ, Tahar S (2007) Towards assertion based verification of analog and mixed signal designs using PSL. In: FDL’07 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dastidar TR, Chakrabarti PP (2005) Verification system for transient response of analog circuits using model checking. In: VLSID’05, pp 195–200 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drusinsky D (2000) The temporal rover and the ATG rover. In: Proc SPIN’00. LNCS, vol 1885. Springer, Berlin, pp 323–330 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fainekos G, Girard A, Pappas G (2006) Temporal logic verification using simulation. In: Proc FORMATS’06. LNCS, vol 4202. Springer, Berlin, pp 171–186 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerth R, Peled DA, Vardi MY, Wolper P (1995) Simple on-the-fly automatic verification of linear temporal logic. In: PSTV, pp 3–18 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gastin P, Oddoux D (2001) Fast LTL to Büchi automata translation. In: CAV’01. LNCS, vol 2101. Springer, Berlin, pp 53–65 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Havlicek J, Fisman D, Eisner C (2004) Basic results on the semantics of Accelera PSL 1.1 foundation language. In: Technical report 2004.02, Accelera Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hartong W, Hedrich L, Barke E (2002) Model checking algorithms for analog verification. In: DAC’02 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Havelund K, Rosu G (2001) Java PathExplorer—a runtime verification tool. In: Proc. ISAIRAS’01 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    JEDEC Standard. JESD79-2C DDR2 SRAM specification Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jesser A, Lämmermann S, Pacholik A, Weiss R, Ruf J, Fengler W, Hedrich L, Kropf T, Rosenstiel W (2007) Analog simulation meets digital verification—a formal assertion approach for mixed-signal verification. In: SASIMI’07, pp 507–514 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim M, Lee I, Sammapun U, Shin J, Sokolsky O (2002) Monitoring, checking, and steering of real-time systems. In: Proc. RV’02. ENTCS 70(4) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Little S, Seegmiller N, Walter D, Myers CJ, Yoneda T (2006) Verification of analog/mixed-signal circuits using labeled hybrid petri-nets. In: ICCAD’06, pp 275–282 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maler O, Manna Z, Pnueli A (1992) From timed to hybrid systems. In: Real-time: theory in practice. LNCS, vol 600. Springer, Berlin, pp 447–484 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maler O, Nickovic D (2004) Monitoring temporal properties of continuous signal. In: FORMATS/FTRTFT’04, pp 152–166 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Manna Z, Pnueli A (1995) Temporal verification of reactive systems: safety. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nickovic D (2008) Checking timed and hybrid properties: theory and practice. PhD thesis Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nahhal T, Dang T (2007) Test coverage for continuous and hybrid systems. In: CAV’07, pp 449–462 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nahhal T, Dang T (2007) Guided randomized simulation. In: HSCC’07, pp 731–735 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nickovic D, Maler O (2007) AMT: a property-based monitoring tool for analog systems. In: FORMATS’07, pp 304–319 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Somenzi F, Bloem R (2000) Efficient Büchi automata from LTL formulae. In: CAV’00. LNCS, vol 1855. Springer, Berlin, pp 248–263 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Steinhorst S, Hedrich L (2008) Model checking of analog systems using an analog specification language. In: DATE’08, pp 324–329 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vardi MY, Wolper P (1986) An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In: LICS’86, pp 322–331 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin D. Jones
    • 1
  • Victor Konrad
    • 1
  • Dejan Ničković
    • 2
  1. 1.Green PlugSan RamonUSA
  2. 2.EPFLLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations