Power State Tables (PST) and UPF Intent Consistency: Inputs and Outputs

Inputs and outputs contract

Inputs and Outputs for Power State Tables (PST) and UPF Intent Consistency is anchored on PST legality closure (allowed states vs observed states) and count of state-encoding mismatches between UPF, firmware tables, and RTL control logic.. Convert observations into mechanism-backed and owner-bound actions.

INPUTS
  - power-mode sequence and ownership context
  - seed, order, and configuration metadata
  - intent assumptions for transitions and crossings
  - assertion and coverage expectation envelope

OUTPUTS
  - evidence-backed failure classification
  - owner-signed mitigation proposal
  - validation matrix and rollback triggers
  - release recommendation

Ownership split

OWNERSHIP LAYERS - Power State Tables (PST) and UPF Intent Consistency

+----------------------+--------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Team                 | Primary responsibility         | Closure artifact               |
+----------------------+--------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| low-power architecture owner | scenario intent and closure      | review rationale memo          |
| UPF and implementation lead | transition and boundary contract | timeline + assertion packet    |
| DV low-power methodology owner | regression signoff readiness     | validation matrix + risk note  |
+----------------------+--------------------------------+--------------------------------+

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.

Handoff explanation

Inputs should include mode sequence, domain status, and control ownership context.

Outputs should include deterministic reproducer and acceptance boundaries.