Inputs and outputs contract

Inputs & Outputs for Abstract Models (LEF/DEF/Timing) focuses on abstract-model mismatch defects, floorplan integration churn. The goal is to map symptoms to boundary contracts, owner actions, and regression-proof closure.

Treat these as a signed integration contract. Ambiguity here causes multi-team debug loops where everyone is right inside their own assumptions.

INPUTS
  - baseline manifest (versions + hashes)
  - interface/budget contract revision
  - mode assumptions (functional/test/low-power)
  - owner accountability map

OUTPUTS
  - measurable closure deltas
  - owner-approved fix proposal
  - regression evidence package
  - risk/waiver disposition

Integration sequence

SOC INTEGRATION FLOW — Abstract Models (LEF/DEF/Timing)

requirements + budgets
        |
        v
IP handoff + collateral check
        |
        v
integration build + bring-up smoke
        |
        v
cross-domain signoff evidence
        |
        v
tapeout readiness decision

Metric in focus: abstract-model mismatch defects, floorplan integration churn

Ownership map

OWNERSHIP MAP — Abstract Models (LEF/DEF/Timing)

artifact             owner
-----------------    -----------------
primary owner     PD owner
co-owner          IP physical owner
review owner      STA owner

No top-level issue should remain ownerless beyond one review cycle.

SoC deep dive

IP handoff quality and version governance drive integration velocity.

Concept diagram

IP HANDOFF PIPELINE
IP package -> baseline lock -> integration build -> bring-up

Metric graph

INTEGRATION CHURN
collateral gaps ██████
version drift █████
real logic bugs ███

Reports and artifacts

• handoff completeness score

• manifest diff report

• model mismatch log

• bring-up issue tracker

Mini case study

Most top-level debug time was spent on collateral drift, not RTL defects.

Debug branches

• Validate handoff checklist

• Lock manifest hashes

• Correlate issue to owner boundary

Senior review question

Ask: what baseline, owner, and artifact prove this topic is truly closed?

Key takeaways

• State baseline manifest and owner with every closure metric.

• Run cross-domain regression after every top-level fix.

Common pitfalls

• Comparing results across different manifests.

• Unowned issues slipping through review cycles.

• Waiving risks without expiry and validation plan.

Principal SoC review addendum

Top-level integration relies on abstract views (timing, physical, power) that must remain aligned with evolving implementation details.

Metric: abstract-model mismatch defects, floorplan integration churn