|
|
1 | (12) |
|
1.1 Trends in System Design with System Level Modeling and High Level Synthesis |
|
|
2 | (5) |
|
1.1.1 The Need for High Level Synthesis |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
1.1.2 Low Power Design and High Level Modeling |
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
1.1.3 Current Power Aware Design Methodology at the High Level |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
1.1.4 Our Power Aware Design Methodology at the High Level |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
1.2 Overview of the Proposed Solutions |
|
|
7 | (3) |
|
1.2.1 Application of the Proposed Techniques |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
|
10 | (3) |
|
|
13 | (18) |
|
2.1 High Level Power Estimation |
|
|
13 | (5) |
|
2.1.1 Spreadsheet Based Approaches |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
2.1.2 Power Estimation Approaches Utilizing Power Models |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
2.1.3 Power Macro-Model Based Approach |
|
|
15 | (2) |
|
2.1.4 Summary of Power Estimation Research |
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
|
18 | (6) |
|
2.2.1 High Level Synthesis from C/C++ Specifications |
|
|
19 | (3) |
|
2.2.2 High Level Synthesis from Behavioral Specifications |
|
|
22 | (1) |
|
2.2.3 Summary of HLS Research |
|
|
23 | (1) |
|
2.3 Power Reduction at the RTL and High Level |
|
|
24 | (7) |
|
2.3.1 Summary: Low-Power High-Level Synthesis Work |
|
|
28 | (3) |
|
|
31 | (14) |
|
3.1 Average Power Components |
|
|
31 | (1) |
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
3.3 FSMD Modeling Using GEZEL |
|
|
33 | (1) |
|
|
33 | (1) |
|
|
34 | (1) |
|
|
34 | (1) |
|
3.5 Multivariate Least Squares Linear Regression Model |
|
|
35 | (1) |
|
|
35 | (1) |
|
3.6 Transaction-Level Modeling |
|
|
36 | (2) |
|
3.7 High Level Synthesis Using C2R |
|
|
38 | (2) |
|
3.8 Power Reduction Using Clock-Gating |
|
|
40 | (5) |
|
|
40 | (1) |
|
3.8.2 Sequential Clock-Gating |
|
|
41 | (4) |
|
4 Architectural Selection Using High Level Synthesis |
|
|
45 | (14) |
|
4.1 Advance Encryption Standard (AES) |
|
|
46 | (2) |
|
4.2 Architectural Exploration for Efficient Hardware Generation |
|
|
48 | (4) |
|
4.2.1 AES Restructuring Iterations |
|
|
48 | (3) |
|
|
51 | (1) |
|
4.3 Functional Verification/Simulation at High-Level |
|
|
52 | (4) |
|
4.3.1 Guidelines for Simulation |
|
|
52 | (3) |
|
4.3.2 Advantages of C-based Verification Model |
|
|
55 | (1) |
|
|
56 | (3) |
|
5 Statistical Regression Based Power Models |
|
|
59 | (12) |
|
5.1 Regression Based Power Model for FSMDs |
|
|
61 | (1) |
|
5.2 Steps for Power Modeling |
|
|
62 | (3) |
|
|
63 | (1) |
|
|
64 | (1) |
|
5.3 Results and Conclusions |
|
|
65 | (6) |
|
|
65 | (1) |
|
5.3.2 Experimental Results |
|
|
65 | (3) |
|
|
68 | (3) |
|
6 Coprocessor Design Space Exploration Using High Level Synthesis |
|
|
71 | (10) |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
|
72 | (1) |
|
|
73 | (3) |
|
6.4 Case Studies and Results |
|
|
76 | (5) |
|
6.4.1 Fibonacci and Caesar |
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
|
77 | (2) |
|
|
79 | (2) |
|
7 Regression-Based Dynamic Power Estimation for FPGAs |
|
|
81 | (12) |
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
|
82 | (1) |
|
7.3 FPGA Power Models Using Linear Regression |
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
|
84 | (3) |
|
7.4.1 Nature of the IPs Used |
|
|
86 | (1) |
|
7.4.2 Dynamic Power Evaluation for Reference Model |
|
|
86 | (1) |
|
7.4.3 Toggle and Resource Utilization Information |
|
|
86 | (1) |
|
7.4.4 Statistical Analysis Using JMP |
|
|
87 | (1) |
|
7.4.5 Model Evaluation Phase |
|
|
87 | (1) |
|
|
87 | (6) |
|
7.5.1 Varying Data Patterns for Fixed IP Set |
|
|
88 | (1) |
|
7.5.2 Varying IPs for Fixed Data Pattern |
|
|
89 | (2) |
|
7.5.3 IP Grouping to Increase Accuracy |
|
|
91 | (2) |
|
8 High Level Simulation Directed RTL Power Estimation |
|
|
93 | (12) |
|
|
93 | (1) |
|
|
94 | (1) |
|
8.2 Rationale for Our Approach |
|
|
94 | (2) |
|
|
96 | (5) |
|
8.3.1 Activity Extraction from the High-Level VCD |
|
|
98 | (1) |
|
8.3.2 High-Level Variable to RTL Signal Mapping |
|
|
99 | (2) |
|
|
101 | (4) |
|
9 Applying Verification Collaterals for Accurate Power Estimation |
|
|
105 | (14) |
|
|
105 | (1) |
|
|
106 | (4) |
|
9.2.1 Assertions for Finding out Particular Mode of Design |
|
|
108 | (1) |
|
9.2.2 Extraction of Modes from the Simulation Dump |
|
|
109 | (1) |
|
9.2.3 High-Level Power Estimation |
|
|
109 | (1) |
|
|
110 | (6) |
|
|
110 | (2) |
|
9.3.2 Directed Testbench Creation from the Specification |
|
|
112 | (1) |
|
9.3.3 Utilizing Assertions for Creating Directed Testbench |
|
|
113 | (3) |
|
|
116 | (3) |
|
10 Power Reduction Using High-Level Clock-Gating |
|
|
119 | (12) |
|
|
119 | (2) |
|
10.1.1 Main Contributions |
|
|
121 | (1) |
|
10.2 Why is Clock-Gating Needed at High-level? |
|
|
121 | (2) |
|
10.3 How to Enable Clock-Gating at High-Level? |
|
|
123 | (4) |
|
10.3.1 Application of Clock-Gating for Various Granularities at the Source-Code Level |
|
|
123 | (1) |
|
10.3.2 Priority for Clock-Gating Decisions |
|
|
124 | (1) |
|
10.3.3 Algorithm for Enabling Clock-gating in C Based Co-processor Synthesis Framework |
|
|
125 | (2) |
|
|
127 | (2) |
|
10.4.1 Clock-Gating Exploration at High-Level |
|
|
128 | (1) |
|
|
129 | (2) |
|
11 Model-Checking to Exploit Sequential Clock-Gating |
|
|
131 | (12) |
|
|
131 | (2) |
|
11.2 Our Approach and Sample Properties |
|
|
133 | (3) |
|
11.2.1 An Illustrative Example |
|
|
133 | (1) |
|
|
134 | (2) |
|
11.3 Our Proposed Methodology |
|
|
136 | (4) |
|
11.3.1 Changes Applied on the RTL Model |
|
|
137 | (2) |
|
11.3.2 Automation of the Flow |
|
|
139 | (1) |
|
11.4 Results and Conclusions |
|
|
140 | (3) |
|
11.4.1 Extending the Framework for HLS |
|
|
140 | (3) |
|
12 System Level Simulation Guided Approach for Clock-Gating |
|
|
143 | (14) |
|
|
143 | (1) |
|
12.2 Power Reduction Model |
|
|
144 | (3) |
|
12.2.1 Activity Based Power Reduction Model |
|
|
145 | (1) |
|
12.2.2 Power Reduction Model with Technology Specific Information |
|
|
146 | (1) |
|
12.3 Rationale for Our Approach |
|
|
147 | (2) |
|
|
149 | (4) |
|
12.4.1 TLM Interface for the Generated CATL SystemC Model |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
|
153 | (4) |
|
|
157 | (6) |
|
|
160 | (3) |
References |
|
163 | |