Panels can often become love fests. While a title may sound controversial, it turns out that everyone quickly finds that all the panelists agree on the major points. This is sometimes the result of how the panel was put together – the proposal came from one company, and they wanted to get their customers or clients onto the panel. They are unlikely to ask a major competitor to be part of the event.

These panels can become livelier if they have a moderator who opens up a panel to audience questions and they decide to throw the spanner in the works. This tends to happen a lot more in the technical panels, because each researcher, who may have taken a different approach to a problem, wants to introduce the audience to their alternative solution. But the pavilion panels tend to be a little more sedate – in part because nobody wants to burn bridges within such a tight industry.

It is quite common for me to moderate a panel each DAC, and this year is no exception. I will be moderating a technical panel whose title is directly confrontational: “Why Is EDA Playing Catchup to Disruptive Technologies Like AI? What Can We Do to Change This?”

The abstract for the panel talks about EDA having a closed mindset, consistently missing disruptive changes by choosing incremental approaches. I know that when I first read it – when I was invited to be the chair for it – I was immediately up in arms.

Twenty years ago, while working at an EDA company, I attempted to drive such disruptive changes in the verification industry. Several times a year, I would go out and talk to our customers and exchange ideas with them about the problems they were facing. We would present ideas about both incremental and disruptive developments we had underway. The message was always the same. “Can we have the incremental changes yesterday? And we don’t have time to think about the longer-term ideas.” It reminded me of the cartoon where a stone-age person is pulling a cart with square wheels and doesn’t have time to listen to the person offering him round ones.

Even so, we did go ahead and develop some of them, and a few of them did achieve an element of success. But to go from first adopters to more mainstream interests often took 10 years. Even today, many of those are still niche tools, and probably money sinks for the companies that developed them. Examples are high-level synthesis and virtual prototypes, the only two pieces of the whole ESL movement that survived. Still, they believe that long term, the industry will need them. Many other pieces completely fell by the wayside, such as hardware/software co-design. That, however, may start to resurface thanks to RISC-V.

Many of the tools associated with ESL were direct collaborations between EDA companies and researchers. I established a research collaboration program with the University of Washington that looked at multi-abstraction simulation, protocol checking and had elements of system synthesis. The only thing that came out of that was hardware software co-verification. Protocol checking, in the form of VIP, also has become popular, although not directly because of this program. Co-verification had a useful life of about five years before SystemC made the solution obsolete.

Many disruptive innovations actually have come from industry, then were commercialized by EDA companies. SystemC is one example of that. Constrained random verification is another. Portable Stimulus, while still nascent, also was developed within industry. These solutions have an advantage in that they were developed to solve a significant enough problem within the industry that they have broader appeal. There is little that has actually come from academia in recent decades.

The panel title also talks specifically about AI and accuses EDA of being behind already. It is not clear that they are. Thirty years ago, you could go to DAC and see all the new tools and flows that EDA companies were working on. Many of them might be ready within a year or two. But today, EDA companies will make no announcements until at least a few of their customers, that they chose as development partners, have had silicon success.

A typical chip cycle is 18 months. Given that we are beginning to hear about some of these tools today means they may have been in use for a good part of that 18 months. Plus, development of those tools must have started about a year before that. Let’s remember that ChatGPT only came to the fore 18 months ago, and it should be quite obvious why few generative AI products have yet been announced. The fact that there are so many EDA AI announcements would make me think that EDA companies were very quick off the starting blocks.

The panelists are Prith Banerjee – Ansys, who has written a book about disruption; Jan Rabaey – professor in the Graduate School of in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences at the University of California, Berkeley, who also serves as the CTO of the Systems Technology Co-Optimization division at imec; Samir Mittal, corporate VP for Silicon Systems AI at Micron Technology; James Scapa, founder and CEO of Altair; and Charles Alpert, fellow at Cadence Design Systems.

If you are going to be at DAC and have access to the technical program, this 90-minute panel may be worth your time. Wednesday June 26^th at 10:30am. Come ready with your questions because I will certainly be opening this panel up to the audience very quickly. While sparks may fly, please try and keep your cool and be respectful.

The post DAC Panel Could Spark Fireworks appeared first on Semiconductor Engineering.