Setup / Hold Closure Order: Debug Playbook

Debug playbook

Debug Playbook for Setup / Hold Closure Order focuses on setup WNS, hold WNS, simultaneous violation count. The goal is to connect the observable symptom to timing mechanism, ownership, and regression risk.

STA debug is a search for the FIRST deviation, not the loudest downstream symptom. Hold failures after setup ECO are a classic example of fixing the wrong layer first.

Root-cause tree

ROOT-CAUSE TREE — Setup / Hold Closure Order

setup WNS, hold WNS, simultaneous violation count looks wrong
        |
   same netlist tag?
     /        \
   no          yes
   |            |
 view/SDC     real path or
 mismatch     constraint bug
 /    \           |
lib   SPEF    delay breakdown
diff  diff    cell vs net

1. Freeze the failing netlist tag, SDC revision, and SPEF corner.

2. Find the first constraint or delay anomaly on the critical path.

3. Map the path to launch/capture clocks and path group.

4. Classify the failure: constraint bug, view mismatch, cell delay, net delay, or SI.

5. Prove the mechanism with one reduced path or isolated scenario.

6. Patch the smallest owner-controlled fix and rerun setup, hold, and MMMC.

Review memo template

STAFF STA REVIEW MEMO — ECO Timing Closure / Setup / Hold Closure Order

1. Symptom
   - Watched metric: setup WNS, hold WNS, simultaneous violation count
   - Failing scenario: <corner/mode/view>
   - Path group: <reg2reg / in2reg / reg2out / async>
   - Database tags: <netlist, SDC, SPEF, lib>

2. Mechanism hypothesis
   - Primary mechanism: Setup and hold compete through delay changes; closure order and ECO type must avoid fixing one at the expense of the other.
   - Competing hypothesis: <constraint bug, view mismatch, cell delay, net delay, SI>
   - Missing evidence: <report_timing, clock report, constraint trace>

3. Proposed action
   - Minimal reversible change: <SDC fix, sizing, VT swap, route, useful skew>
   - Expected metric movement: <WNS/TNS delta>
   - Regression risk: hold, other corners, SI, leakage

4. Signoff
   - Re-run artifact: setup/hold trend chart, ECO sequence log, path replay
   - Required owners: timing closure lead, PD owner, STA owner
   - Final decision: ECO, waive, constraint fix, or escalate

STA deep dive

ECO without regression is a coin flip.

Concept diagram

ECO LOOP

failing path -> fix -> setup check -> hold check -> SI -> MMMC matrix

Metric graph

ECO PROGRESS

WNS
 0 |              o target
-50|        o
-100|   o baseline
    +-----------------> ECO #

Reports and artifacts

• pre/post WNS

• hold delta

• leakage delta

• ECO ticket log

Mini case study

48-hour tapeout crunch: VT swap fixed setup; hold fixed with route on short path — order mattered.

Debug branches

• Never ship setup-only proof

• Logical ECO needs equivalence

Senior review question

Ask: what corner/mode/view proves this topic is closed or failing?

Key takeaways

• State corner, mode, view, and database tag with every slack claim.

• Run setup and hold plus MMMC regression after every ECO.

Common pitfalls

• Comparing STA runs with different SPEF or SDC tags.

• Broad false_path to green-wash violations.

• Setup-only ECO without hold check.

Principal STA review addendum

Setup and hold compete through delay changes; closure order and ECO type must avoid fixing one at the expense of the other.

Metric: setup WNS, hold WNS, simultaneous violation count