PPA Tradeoff Playbook: Inputs & Outputs

Inputs and outputs contract

Inputs & Outputs for PPA Tradeoff Playbook focuses on area-power-timing Pareto points, closure runtime, regression stability. The goal is to connect observed QoR movement to mechanism, ownership, and regression risk.

Synthesis closure fails when teams optimize against different assumptions. Treat these artifacts as a signed handoff contract.

INPUTS
  - RTL tag and compile switches
  - SDC / policy constraints
  - Library and operating views
  - Optional physical estimates (topo/congestion)

OUTPUTS
  - QoR timing/area/power reports
  - transform/mapping summaries
  - owner-tagged closure memo
  - regression matrix verdict

Flow sequence

SYNTHESIS FLOW — PPA Tradeoff Playbook

RTL + constraints
      |
      v
elaboration + checks
      |
      v
mapping + optimization
      |
      v
QoR reports (timing/area/power)
      |
      v
incremental ECO + regression

Primary metric: area-power-timing Pareto points, closure runtime, regression stability

Ownership map

OWNERSHIP MAP — PPA Tradeoff Playbook

artifact              owner
----------------      -----------------
compile owner       synthesis lead
timing/power owner  program owner
cross-team review   PD owner

Every QoR movement needs a named owner before ECO.

Synthesis deep dive

PPA closure is a constrained tradeoff problem, not a timing-only exercise.

Concept diagram

PPA TRIAD

timing target <-> power budget <-> area cap

Metric graph

PARETO PROGRESSION

early runs      o o
balanced point    o
over-tuned          o (risk)

Reports and artifacts

• VT mix

• leakage trend

• dynamic power trend

• PPA Pareto table

Mini case study

LVT-heavy fix recovered setup but violated leakage target; balanced VT strategy closed both.

Debug branches

• Timing-only claims need power check

• Validate hold on VT swaps

• Use Pareto memo

Senior review question

Ask: what evidence proves this QoR move is real and stable?

Key takeaways

• State exact run context (RTL, SDC, libs, switches) with every QoR claim.

• Re-run timing, area, and power regressions after each synthesis ECO.

Common pitfalls

• Comparing runs with mismatched constraints or library views.

• Timing-only fixes that violate power or area budgets.

• Skipping equivalence checks after structural changes.

Principal synthesis review addendum

PPA closure is a constrained optimization problem: teams choose options by Pareto quality, not single-metric heroics.

Metric: area-power-timing Pareto points, closure runtime, regression stability