Coverage Across Multiple Power Domains: Software and Programmer View

Software and programmer view

State-transition failures often sit at PMU, firmware, and verification boundary assumptions rather than single RTL modules.

What teams feel

• mode-entry regressions that are hard to reproduce

• inconsistent behavior across simulators or config profiles

• late triage loops due to weak failure classification

API and integration impact

• PMU and firmware handshake contract clarity

• power-mode API assumptions and timing envelopes

• testbench sequencing ownership and checker placement

Tooling and compile-time implications

• tool power-aware semantics and elaboration assumptions

• assertion noise versus actionable signal quality

• coverage aggregation consistency across runs

Mitigations

• standardize LPV run metadata and transition sequence capture

• gate key regressions on deterministic replay checks

• enforce boundary ownership in review templates

SOFTWARE VIEW - Coverage Across Multiple Power Domains
// prove phase ordering and boundary controls before broad waivers

Low-power verification deep dive

Power-state correctness is a protocol contract: legal transitions, robust sequencing, and safe concurrent event handling.

Concept diagram

PST CONTROL LOOP

state request -> legality check -> handshake sequencing -> mode entry -> monitored exit

Metric graph

STATE RISK MIX

illegal transitions     ██████
sequence race bugs      █████
stable mode paths       ████████

Metrics and artifacts to collect

• PST legality matrix

• illegal transition histogram

• entry/exit handshake coverage

• mode sequencing anomaly log

Mini case study

A sporadic low-power failure closed only after proving a wake-versus-thermal race in PMU transition sequencing.

Debug branches

• Validate legal state graph first.

• Stress concurrent control events and asynchronous wakeups.

• Bind fixes to explicit transition and owner contracts.

Senior review question

Ask: what exact low-power transition boundary failed first, and which artifact proves the closure claim reproducibly?

Key takeaways

• Tie each LPV claim to a concrete transition boundary and one proving artifact.

• Prefer minimal reversible fixes with explicit owner and rollback criteria.

Common pitfalls

• Treating power-aware failures as random before boundary classification.

• Waiving X-prop failures before proving impact and root cause.

• Declaring closure without deterministic replay across key modes.

Principal LPV review addendum

Coverage Across Multiple Power Domains should be reviewed as a transition integrity system, not just isolated checks.

Use Risk-weighted coverage closure for domain-state cross products, inter-domain transition pairs, and wakeup cause by mode combinations. as alarm and Multi-domain coverage plan with cross-product reduction rules, risk-ranked bins, and signoff waiver criteria. as proof.

Power-state verification is a protocol verification problem: legal transitions, ordering contracts, and corner-case concurrency. Closure quality comes from reproducible evidence and explicit owners.