The question often begins as follows: “Do you know of any ESL-like tools that would apply to a larger system that incorporates mechanical, electrical, HW, and SW.”
Great question! One that probably can not be answer by an EDA person, or anyone else that has a niche view. Likewise, it’s not a question that can be answered by the high-level, domain-independent tools, that is, System Engineering Tools like Slate, Core, Doors, etc. It’s analogous to the challenges - in our EDA world - of linking the worlds of algorithmic and RTL development. It’s a problem of too many layers of abstraction.
In the case of high level systems engineering tools like Slate, Core, and others, the problem is that all you can do at such a high level is establish an overall architecture then drill down with point tools for rqmts, hw-sw partitioning, etc. This was one of the problem that I faced many years ago while working for the DoE superfund clean-up site: How to go from a very high level problem discussions and perceptions from stakeholders, general public, lawyers, etc, to a traceable/verifiable solution implementation in hardware, software, peopleware, mechanical systems, etc. I should really talk more about that experience, since it’s very applicable here. But I don’t want to stray too far afield for this blog entry, that is , I want to focus on implementations that result in HW and SW.
To that end, earlier this year I directed my iDesign editor (Clive Maxfield) to focus exclusively on chip-package-board issues, more from an electronics viewpoint than a hw-sw division. Max wrote a great piece to initiate the new chip-package-board direction for iDesign.
This issue of subsystem views and tools (i.e., chip vs board vs module vs complete product) remains a challenge. EDA companies like Cadence, Synposys and Mentor are all trying to find ways to address chip-package-board level designs, but this is already the domain of big companies like Autodesk and Dassault Systems, among others:
“An acquisition of Cadence by AutoDesk - makers of AutoCAD - does make sense. Cadence makes several good point tools that would complement AutoCAD’s existing product engines, e.g., in the aircraft, automotive and multimedia markets. AutoCAD has all the 3D modeling, rendering and packaging tools that are coveted by the major EDA companies. AutoCAD is truly a big fish with around $4 ½ B in sales and a market cap of $9B. This makes AutoCAD roughly four times the size of Cadence. So an acquisition of Cadence makes both technical and financial sense.”
The problem of chip-package-board design is a big one - bigger than ESL. But the need for a solution is just as pressing. Any thoughts?