Course map
- 1 lesson
Starts with How to Use This Course
- 1 lesson
Starts with Low-Power Metrics Reference
- 1 lesson
Starts with Low-Power Glossary
- 1 lesson
Starts with Reading Path
- 61 lessons
Starts with Supply Sets & Power States: Mechanism
- 61 lessons
Starts with Isolation Strategies: Mechanism
- 61 lessons
Starts with Level Shifter Selection: Mechanism
- 61 lessons
Starts with UPF RTL Handoff: Mechanism
- 61 lessons
Starts with Power State Verification: Mechanism
- 61 lessons
Starts with Domain Grid Partitioning: Mechanism
- 4 lessons
Starts with Low-Power Whiteboard Framework
- 1 lesson
Starts with Low Power / UPF Cheatsheet
About this course
Course promise
This is the low-power execution course for silicon teams. It teaches how to author UPF intent, validate transition correctness, debug power-domain failures, and close release risk across architecture, RTL, verification, and PD.
Power intent as executable architecture contract.
Isolation, retention, level shifting, and switching done with sequence discipline.
Simulation, formal, and implementation evidence combined for signoff.
Every topic follows transition -> policy -> metric -> artifact -> owner -> regression.
Course map
Show how the course is organised
power intent fundamentals
-> isolation / retention correctness
-> level shifters + switch architecture
-> RTL-to-PD UPF consistency
-> verification + transition coverage
-> PD integration + signoff dashboardRelated topics
Section deep dive
Low-power signoff depends on consistent intent, sequence correctness, and evidence hygiene.
Concept diagram
Show Concept diagram
intent -> implementation -> verification -> signoffMetric graph
Show Metric graph
closure trendReports and artifacts
policy report
state coverage
waiver log
Mini case study
Freeze revisions before debug.
Debug branches
Check transition context first
Senior review question
Ask: what transition evidence proves this topic is closed, and which owner signs it?
Execution drill pack 1
Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.
Transition checklist
State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.
Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.
Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.
Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.
Review prompts
Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?
Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?
What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?
Which waiver conditions would still block release?
Evidence capsule
Show Evidence capsule
LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 1
PATH: low-power
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>Execution drill pack 2
Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.
Transition checklist
State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.
Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.
Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.
Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.
Review prompts
Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?
Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?
What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?
Which waiver conditions would still block release?
Evidence capsule
Show Evidence capsule
LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 2
PATH: low-power
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>Execution drill pack 3
Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.
Transition checklist
State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.
Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.
Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.
Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.
Review prompts
Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?
Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?
What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?
Which waiver conditions would still block release?
Evidence capsule
Show Evidence capsule
LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 3
PATH: low-power
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>