Skip to content
DenseChip
Learn
PracticeCode labInterview

DenseChip

Navigate

Menu

LearnPracticeCode labInterview

Tools

All toolsSV editorCode repoResume
DenseChip

Practice, courses, and chip-design tools in one focused workspace.

LearnPracticeCode labInterviewToolsLearning paths

© 2026 DenseChip

AboutContactPrivacyTerms
Skip to lesson

Course contents

  • RTL Foundations36
  • Combinational Design25
  • Sequential Design27
  • FSM & Control27
  • Timing & Clocking39
  • Reset & CDC34
    • Reset Architecture
    • Metastability and Synchronisation
    • Asynchronous FIFO
    • CDC Protocols
    • Reset Domain Crossing
    • CDC Verification
      • Rules
      • Simulation
      • Assertion Patterns
      • FIFO Tests
      • Signoff
      • Reading a CDC Report
      • A CDC Mini Project
  • Memory & Buses57
  • Advanced RTL28
  • Senior & Interview76
  • Glossary and Notation
Loading lesson

‹CDC Verification
  1. Topics
  2. RTL Design
  3. Reset & CDC
  4. CDC Verification
  5. Signoff

Part 6 · Reset & CDC · Intermediate

Signoff

A checklist of structural, simulation, assertion and implementation signoff evidence.

On this page

    Why this matters

    A 500-device-year MTBF is about 228 FIT, which alone exceeds the 1 FIT the lesson's example gives to all CDC crossings. Signoff needs evidence for every crossing, and a row without evidence is work still open.

    After this lesson you can: fill in a CDC signoff table, allocate a FIT budget across crossings, and trace a late finding to the check that would have caught it.

    Signoff checklist

    Each row names the evidence for one area. A row without evidence is work still open.

    Area

    Item

    Evidence

    Structure

    All crossings classified (single bit, pulse, word, stream, counter)

    CDC tool report; crossing table in the design document

    Structure

    No unwaived violations; every waiver has a reason

    Waiver file under version control

    Reset

    One synchroniser per domain; release order defined

    Reset tree document; sequencer test

    Reset

    RDC report reviewed; one-sided reset behaviour tested

    Randomised reset tests

    Simulation

    Several clock ratios, random offsets and jitter; window hits counted per crossing

    Regression log with hit counts

    Simulation

    Mutation runs fail as expected (binary pointers, unstable data, short hold)

    Mutation log

    Assertions

    Protocol assertions bound to every handshake and FIFO

    Assertion report: no failures, cover points hit

    Implementation

    Delay and skew constraints on crossing paths; synchroniser flops protected from merging and placed together

    STA report; netlist check

    Implementation

    Recovery/removal passes for all asynchronous reset releases

    STA report

    Reliability

    Allocate total CDC FIT across crossings and compare characterized estimates at worst operating corners

    Product failure budget, crossing count/activity and summed FIT with assumptions

    Reliability

    Use implemented minimum settling time, not nominal clock period, in each estimate

    Post-route stage-1 Q to stage-2 D timing, clock uncertainty/skew, setup and characterized cell parameters at PVT; estimate and margin review

    Documentation

    Each crossing lists the structure, the stability or spacing assumption and the throughput

    Design document

    Reliability allocation

    Follow the MTBF and third-flop lesson. Illustrative allocation only: a 10 FIT product budget assigns 1 FIT to all CDC crossings; 100 equal-budget crossings each receive 0.01 FIT, requiring MTBF ≥ 10^11 hours per crossing (about 11.4 million years). FIT = 10^9 / MTBF_hours; sum crossing FIT, including every relevant synchronizer bit, against the allocation. Unequal activity and fault consequences usually justify unequal budgets. A 500-device-year MTBF is about 228 FIT and would exceed this example's entire CDC allocation.

    For each crossing, retain destination frequency, bounded data-toggle rate, stage count, cell/library characterization and PVT, and the minimum implemented settling time from the timing model (receiving period adjusted for clock-to-Q, interstage route, setup, clock skew and uncertainty). Apply the characterized model with consistent units and compare worst-corner FIT and margin to its allocation. A third stage, better placement, a slower destination or reduced activity may be needed. Functional window-hit counts cannot supply these parameters.

    Draft evidence record

    Status for this course example

    Allocation: 1 FIT CDC / 100 crossings = 0.01 FIT each

    Illustrative assumption; product owner must approve actual allocation

    Cell parameters, stage timing, corners and activity

    Pending characterization and post-route timing; no measured settling time supplied

    Per-crossing and summed FIT; margin; fault containment review

    Pending calculation and reliability/implementation review; no physical signoff claimed

    Late findings

    Each finding below points at the check that would have caught it.

    Finding

    Usually caused by

    Intermittent lost word in the lab

    A pulse crossing with spacing below the limit, or a hold time that assumed a fixed clock ratio

    Wrong pointer or count after a clock change

    Binary instead of Gray, or Gray computed combinationally

    Duplicate or garbage word after a reset

    One-sided reset of a handshake (RDC)

    Random startup failures

    Missing reset synchroniser, unsafe release order, or an unreset control flop

    Timing report clean but chip fails

    A blanket false path or clock-groups statement that hid a crossing without a synchroniser

    Keeping the evidence

    Tip

    Keep the signoff table in the repository and update it with each release. It is also the best onboarding document for a new engineer working on the design.

    Interview

    If asked to summarise CDC in one minute: classify the crossing, use the matching structure, constrain it, check it structurally, simulate it with hostile timing and assertions, and prove the tests catch injected bugs.

    Check yourself Which one item on the list would have caught a binary-pointer FIFO that passed ordinary simulation?

    The mutation run with metastability-aware synchronisers (and the CDC tool's multi-bit crossing rule). A plain simulation without metastability modelling passes the broken design.

    Remember

    • FIT = 10^9 / MTBF hours. Sum every crossing, including each synchroniser bit, against the allocation.

    • Window-hit counts cannot supply reliability parameters. Use characterised cells, PVT and the implemented settling time.

    • Keep the signoff table in the repository and update it each release.

    Rule of thumb: classify, use the matching structure, constrain, check structurally, simulate hostile, and prove the tests catch injected bugs.

    How this was checked

    The allocation (10 FIT product budget, 1 FIT for CDC, 100 crossings at 0.01 FIT each) is an illustration; the product owner must approve the real one. The draft evidence table is pending characterisation and post-route timing, and no physical signoff is claimed.

    Keep going

    • Practice: MTBF analysis of synchronisers and how to improve reliability

    • Interview: run a mock interview on this topic

    Related topics

    • Reading a CDC report

    • Next: Memory and buses

    Previous

    186 / 350

    Next: Reading a CDC Report

    Up next

    Up nextReading a CDC Report

    Sign in to save progress

    Practice this lessonReport an error

    See also

    • Rules
    • Simulation
    • Assertion Patterns