Google-Apps
Hauptmenü

Post a Comment On: Ken Shirriff's blog

"The ARM1 processor's flags, reverse engineered"

3 Comments -

1 – 3 of 3
Blogger Unknown said...

An NMOS transistor can provide more current than a PMOS? Should that not be an NMOS transistor can provide current faster than a PMOS - electrons being more agile than holes?

I'd be interested to know what software you used? I used to use some from Cadence around the time this was made and ISTR the layout could be back translated into a cct net for something this size in around a day (including parasitics etc) and that could be used to check layout and cct matched.

February 9, 2016 at 1:13 AM

Blogger Ken Shirriff said...

Unknown: the current is due to the flow of electrons or holes, so faster-moving electrons result in lower impedance and more current with NMOS (for the same sized transistor).

For software, I'm using the Visual ARM1 simulator, as well as a bunch of scripts I've hacked together to convert the netlist into gates.

March 18, 2016 at 11:07 AM

Blogger Unknown said...

That's true for the same doping density and profile. Its around 36 years since I used to design these things and ISTR the obvious (electrons being faster than holes say) is not always the answer. The doping method can result in the silicon crystal structure being disturbed (increasing resistance) and doping N to same level of P may not be achievable.
There is (was) software that could convert a layout into gates (and parasitics)so in theory you should be able to dump the CIF file into it and get a gate level output - or indeed a full spice listing with parasitics if you can find out the silicon process details.
Tom

March 19, 2016 at 1:56 AM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot