DFT Digest

So I was searching around for some info on DFM lately, and I ran across an interview of Walter Ng of Chartered Semiconductor at Peggy Aycinena’s EDA Confidential. He had some good points about DFM, DFY, and the lack of clear definitions and such. Then it came to the question of how DFT fits into it all. The answer starts off with “DFT is a must…”

OK, good start. But the answer morphed into a somewhat immature discussion of design-for-test and it’s place in the design flow, and it sort of shocked me. Every time I start thinking that we’ve gotten beyond the ‘design vs. test’ mentality, I read or hear something like this:

“Now, testability is recognized as a must, so the test teams are in there with the design teams. But nonetheless, they’re still second-class citizens.”

… ughhh, truth hurts. But hey, people like us more than dentists! I think… but seriously, I think it probably still is that way in many places. I ripped this statement out of context, so see the interview for yourself, but in my eyes, the rest of the conversation that was DFT related didn’t fare much better. The question asked was how DFT fits into the continuum of DFM, but without a well formed thought with which to respond, the answer fell back to how test hampers design.

On the other hand, Andrew Kahng of Blaze DFM, seemed like he recognized that maybe DFT could contribute to this nebulous new technology, but still admitted:

“DFT is definitely one of the technology areas I wish I understood better.”

So the two big players in DFM technology, the manufacturers, and the EDA vendors, still have some ground to cover to recognize just how design-for-test can help.