Floorplan width should be optional for hardmacros about hammer HOT 11 CLOSED

Might be useful to keep the info around to do IR checking

from hammer.

Might be useful to keep the info around to do IR checking

I'm not sure I understand what this comment is saying. What info and why?

from hammer.

The width/height for hardmacros. There can be a piece of code that checks that two hardmacros aren't placed on top of each other, etc just based on the info in the Hammer IR. This can help save a lot of time by catching the error upfront than 3 hours into the CAD run.

from hammer.

I don't understand what you're proposing- it is currently a requirement and @colinschmidt is suggesting to make it optional. Are you saying we should continue to make it mandatory? Not disagreeing, I just don't understand what you're trying to communicate.

from hammer.

I am mainly just wondering if we should keep floorplan width/height as mandatory in order to facilitate this kind of check. (Though if the width/height is not specified, then that macro could just be excluded from the check list I suppose.)

from hammer.

I think this is a good discussion to have soon, as it might set a precedent for future issues. I see pros and cons to both approaches

Mandatory:

• Pro: Checks are easy, "forces" designers to include this info
• Con: May lead some people to set it to 0 at first and then create an unreliable source of info. Also more front-loaded work.

Optional:

• Pro: Flexible, agile
• Con: Extra work / code overhead in writing checks that need to support optional fields

from hammer.

"Checks are easy, "forces" designers to include this info" -> also enforces more of a "correct-by-construction" style of design.

"Extra work / code overhead in writing checks that need to support optional fields" -> also reduces the strength/validity of the checks

from hammer.

Ya'll need to write some large floorplans. I stand by my desire for this field being optional.

from hammer.

Yeah I can see why this would be useful when writing large floorplans by hand. I was thinking more in a world where most of the floorplanning constraints are generated, this would be less of a usability issue.

from hammer.

I eagerly await such a world.

from hammer.

For the record I agree with @colinschmidt, but I do think it's not a cut-and-dried situation.

from hammer.