Bump Map & Escape Planning: Inputs & Outputs

Inputs and outputs contract

Inputs & Outputs for Bump Map & Escape Planning focuses on bump congestion, reroute churn, escape DRC violations. 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 — Bump Map & Escape Planning

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: bump congestion, reroute churn, escape DRC violations

Ownership map

OWNERSHIP MAP — Bump Map & Escape Planning

artifact             owner
-----------------    -----------------
primary owner     package owner
co-owner          top-level PD owner
review owner      power integrity owner

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

SoC deep dive

Package assumptions must be treated as first-class chip constraints.

Concept diagram

PACKAGE CO-DESIGN
die io <-> package routing <-> board constraints

Metric graph

PACKAGE RISK MIX
SI margin █████
power integrity ████
lane mapping ███

Reports and artifacts

• bump map revision log

• SI/PI margin report

• IO co-design checklist

• package bring-up failures

Mini case study

Link degradation on product board came from package routing assumptions not reflected in pre-silicon model.

Debug branches

• Compare package model versions

• Audit lane mapping

• Correlate SI/PI margins to failures

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

Bump maps and escape strategy determine routability, IR quality, and package feasibility before final pad-ring freeze.

Metric: bump congestion, reroute churn, escape DRC violations