Transcript What's All This 3D Testing All About

Alfred L. Crouch
Chief Technologist & Director of IJTAG R&D Core Instruments
Technical Chair IEEE P1687 “IJTAG” Working Group
Technical Co-Chair of iNEMI BIST Project Phase 2
Editor for IEEE P1838 “3D” Working Group
Author of “DFT for Digital IC’s and Embedded Core Systems”
“DFT Oriented Low Cost Testers” in Advances in Electronic Testing
Introduction to 3D?
3D Test Access and DFx Requirements
The Truth about Moore’s Law
So, who suffers?
Fab Tool Providers…
…they only have 5
customers left…
BTW October 2011
2
The 3D Business: Why 3D?
Okay, Moore’s Law – transistors get tinier, die get bigger, wafers get
bigger, microprocessors make more money…yadda, yadda, yadda
Fabs are starting 28nm production right now
It might, maybe, could, we think…be cheaper to stack die on top of each other
instead of shooting for going below 7nm
…and how do you keep making Fabs when there are fewer of them every year (the
Fab parts supplier gets below critical customer mass)…
What else may be driving this?
Form-Factor – How small can we make an iPhone? How much memory do you want
in a thumb drive? Can we get a 10M-pixel camera in our sunglass frames? HDTV in
our glasses?
Performance – It may be better to stack optimized die like Processors in a great
logic process and Memory in an ideal memory proccess and to put them close
together (Vertical is 30u – Horizontal could be 200u)
BTW October 2011
3
3D Silicon Represents Loss of Access to Die
BTW October 2011
4
The 3 Main 3D Business Paradigms
The main one today is Homogenous Die Stacking
Memory growth by stacking identical memory die
One thought is to reorganize a chip – like a microprocessor
and to distribute it in 3-Dimensions
Smaller Die size, things closer together
Owned by one design group/company/organization
TSV’s put in with layout tools too meet local layout goals
The other idea is to create a “competitive socket” and to
have “die-providers” vie for the space (the hard one)
Open like a hard-core business
Source and Second-Source
Yield-Management
Standards Based (not just Test, but features, locations)
Drill & Fill or manufactured as Upper-Die
BTW October 2011
5
The 3D Die Types
A Base/Bottom Die will be similar to die today
Will have board/socket connections
Will have bumps on top to pass on connections
Must pass Powers & Grounds up to “the Stack”
Base connection may be an interposer
All other die will be “Middle or Upper Die”
Only bumps on both sides (or only on bottom for Top Die)
Minimal or no probe pads (no ESD protection either)
It may be possible to define a “Top Die” (i.e. RF emitter, no top bumps)
Providing a die to be used as both a Base and an Upper will probably be
two (or more) different design efforts
Stacking order depends on market and possibly some engineering
considerations (power, number of TSV’s, heat-generation…)
e.g. bottom die is a processor, next is the memory, then die is stacked by the
amount of power & grounds needed; or by thermal considerations
BTW October 2011
6
The 3D Description and Problem
We’ve been making Stacked-Things for quite a while
SIPs, PoPs, FLIPs, FLOPs…
Did we learn anything usable from this?
Testing was still individual chips then packaging (bond wires, glue, velcro,
duct tape…)
What is different about what we call 3D
Through-Silicon-Via’s (TSV’s) make direct buried die-to-die connections
Bare die have no pins (maybe no Pads)
Manufacturing of TSV’s is potentially destructive
Wafer-Thinning and Back grinding
Laser drilling and metal filling
TSV’s are similar to today’s Via’s
Voids, inconsistent filling (there is no such thing as a good via…)
The smaller the via and closer the via pitch, the more problems with resistance,
inductance and capacitance
No disassembly when a die is found to be bad…
BTW October 2011
7
3D – The Stack
FPGA
Programmable Die
Interposer
Upper Die
Upper Die
Interposer
Base Die
3D Drill & Fill doesn’t buy back area 1:1
Bump Pitch
Direct probing may result in
potential damage
Note: no ESD protection
•
•
•
•
Bump Size
Via Size
Via Size + Keep-Out Zone
Via Pitch / Bump Pitch
Logic Spreading to accommodate TSVs
e.g. 300K TSV’s consume 1mm^2
No logic/routes in this area
Via Pitch
BTW October 2011
9
Comparison of TSV to On-Chip Interconnect
http://www.monolithic3d.com/tsv-vs-monolithic-3d.html
Remember 2um = 2000nm
Compared to 28nm objects
(a) Illustration of TSV in a 3D-IC, and (b) ITRS Projections
BTW October 2011
10
“TSV” by Makoto Motoyoshi
http://emlab.uiuc.edu/tsv/Yokohama_paper.pdf
A SEM image of 60x60 um^2 TSVs after deep Si etch
BTW October 2011
11
3D TSV’s in microns, Bumps limiting factor
STATS ChipPAC also offers a 300mm post-TSV “mid-end” fabrication process
flow that occurs between the wafer fabrication and back-end assembly process.
Mid-end processes support the advanced manufacturing requirements of 2.5D
and 3D TSV, as well as wafer-level packaging, flip chip and embedded die
technology.The mid-end process includes temporary bonding/de-bonding,
back-side via reveal, silicon recess and back-side metallization and
microbumping. Microbump is required to meet fine pitch, low profile
applications in 3D TSV, stacking and assembly. STATS ChipPAC offers 60/40um
pitch microbump bonding.
BTW October 2011
12
3D In the News
http://www.electroiq.com/articles/ap/2011/06/3d-ic-prototyping.html
3D IC prototyping process result of MENT, Tezzaron, MOSIS collaboration
June 16, 2011 -- Mentor Graphics Corporation (NASDAQ:MENT), in a cooperative effort with Tezzaron Semiconductor
and MOSIS, created a process for economically developing and manufacturing 3D-IC prototypes on multi-project wafers
(MPWs). The process enables designs using tens of millions of through silicon vias (TSVs) with dimensions as
small as 1.2 x 6µm and 2.4µm pitch, producing up to 300,000 vertical interconnects per mm2.
MOSIS's Multi Project Wafer (MPW) services now allow users, via Tezzaron, to test out 3D-IC concepts using the same
provider and model they currently use for their standard semiconductors, said Wes Hansford, director at MOSIS, who
added that resource and schedule coordination reduces the "effort and risk" in moving silicon roadmaps forward. MOSIS
manages MPW projects including reticle creation, fab reservations, final packaging and testing, and other logistics.
Tezzaron enhances customer designs as required for successful 3D-IC integration and also provides backend
manufacturing steps including wafer thinning, backside metal and wafer bonding.
Mentor Graphics provides DRC and LVS tools that support 3D-IC physical verification, ensuring that designs are correct
and will meet 3D process requirements. Mentor Graphics brings production-certified Calibre solutions to the prototyping
step, verifying that "3D-IC designs are manufacturable," said Joseph Sawicki, VP and GM of the Design-to-Silicon Division
at Mentor Graphics. "The Calibre solution uses foundry-certified PDKs from MOSIS wafer suppliers with extensions for
MOSIS-Tezzaron 3D-IC designs."
Customers can use the 3D-IC service to create proof-of-concept ICs that demonstrate the use of high-density TSVs in
stacked die configurations for intelligent sensor, multi-core processor and many other applications.
MOSIS is a low-cost prototyping and small-volume production service for VLSI circuit development. For more information
about the 3D-IC prototyping service, visit www.mosis.com.
Tezzaron Semiconductor specializes in 3D wafer stacking, TSV processes, and cutting-edge memory products. Learn
more at www.tezzaron.com
Mentor Graphics Corporation (NASDAQ:MENT) provides electronic hardware and software design solutions. Learn more
at http://www.mentor.com/.
BTW October 2011
13
Cascade Microtech: Replaceable Contact Layer
http://atevision.tttc-events.org/Best_ATE_Paper_Award/KGD_Probing.ppt
Tips are 5 um
square and 20 um
tall
35 um pitch array
24 x 48 tips
BTW October 2011
14
Cascade Microtech: Probe marks on ENIG TSV pad
http://atevision.tttc-events.org/Best_ATE_Paper_Award/KGD_Probing.ppt
Exaggerated conditions: 10 TDs at 2.5 gf
Navigation grid (50 x 40 um) shows 3 probe
marks on the 100 um diameter pad
BTW October 2011
15
Today’s 3D vs Future 3D
• Flat Layout
• Units take up N-S/E-W space
• Routing distance is N-S/E-W lengths
• Stacking is displacement for TSV and
similar on top of base
• Mostly today’s CAD/CAE Tools
• Vertical Layout from the start
• Core/Elevators at heart of design
• Routing distance is X, Y, or Z lengths
• Stacking is engineering consideration
(thermal, route-distance, RF, noise, etc.)
• New CAD/CAE Tools
BTW October 2011
16
What is the Big Picture in the Chip World?
 Embedded Content has grown with Moore’s
Law
Mem-Core
 Cores include embedded content that
becomes doubly or triply embedded logic
(IEEE 1500 was created to assist with test
access and portability)
Analog
Core
Power
Config
RF Core
Scan & LBIST
Mem-CoreMBISTMem-Config
Mem-Core BIST
ASIC Mem Core
CPU CoreMBIST DSP Core
Scan & LBIST
MBIST
 Test Logic is no longer just used at WaferProbe or ATE IC Test
Scan &
Debug
 Fault Tolerance and reliability demands
embedded runtime features
Mem-Core
Scan &
Voltage
Monitor
LBIST
Debug
Scan
SerDes
These chips are showing up on
boards with board/system test requirements
 IEEE P1687 and P1149.7 were both started
to address these issues
MBIST
Process Monitor
Mem-CoreMBIST Power
FLASH RF-BIST
Config FLASH
Core
CPU CoreMBIST ASIC
Process Monitor
MBIST
Process Mem-Core
Core Embedded
Core Mem-Core
Monitor
 Standardized Access to embedded content
(Instruments) that is available at Wafer, IC,
Board, and System is needed
 Die Stacking has added a level of
complexity to accessing embedded content
(how is a Core’s LBIST on the 2nd die in a
stack accessed and operated?)
Mem-Config
ASIC
Tuning &
Programing
MBIST
Temp Monitor
Mem-CoreMBISTEmbedded
Mem-CoreMBIST
Repair Mem-Core
Glue MBIST Power
Temp Monitor
MBIST
Die
#3
MBIST
Logic
Config
& DMA
Scan
JTAG
Repair
TAP
Controller
BTW October 2011
17
Temp Monitor
Die #2
Base Die
What’s the Problem – Upper Die?
CPU Core
Scan & Debug
Probe Pad for
Wafer Test or
Stack Issue
What Test
Features Issue
Scan &
Debug
MBIST
1149.1 TAP & Ctrl
ASIC Core
TempMon
Number of Vias
& Where for
Test Issue
Existing
Standard Issue
Die-Test
Isolation Issue
Mem Core
CPU Core
HOT
Spot
DSP Core
Scan &
Debug
LBIST
1500
Wrapper
1149/1500
Boundary Scan
Upper Die
BTW October 2011
18
Scan
1500 Wrapper
Die ID
1149.1 TAP & Ctrl
Access to
Embedded Test
& Debug Issue
FLASH Core
MBIST
Expensive die &
Yield Multiplier
Issue
Security & Trust
Issue
New Defect
Models Issue
Chip-to-Chip
Interconnect
Test Issue
Going Forward to 3 Dimensions
2D Chip Test Issues still exist
DFM still requires a lot of work
Requires more complex vectors than just stuck-at
Favors moving DFx logic onto the chip
DFx is helpful to the Board/System developer
Cores create the first level “access” problem
High-Speed I/O requires tuning
3D Die Stacking aggravates the situation
It becomes a multiplied “access” problem
It creates concerns over temperature hot spots
It creates concerns with noise immunity
Test-scheduling, Test-Cost, Test-Interference
More opportunities for Security and Trust issues
BTW October 2011
19
What are we Testing? Chip vs Board
There are Chip (IC) Tests
Fault Coverage (e.g. Stuck-At, Path Delay, Transition
Delay, n-Detect)
Defect Coverage (shorts, opens, bridges, GOS)
Parametrics (Max FRQ, Leakage – iDDQ, IOH,IIL, VOH,
VIL)
Functional (Read, Write, Bus Transactions, etc.)
Embedded BIST (Logic, Memory, HSIO)
There are Board Tests
PCOLA
SOQ
FAMI
3D Test is a
combination of Both
BTW October 2011
20
What’s Addressing the Issues?
Is anybody brave enough to take on all of these
issues – based on two industries:
Chip and Board
…across several environments
Wafer Probe, Bare-Die Test, Stacked-Die Test
Board Test, Board Characterization, System Test
…with new issues
Thermal concerns
Massive Interconnect
Yield Multiplication
BTW October 2011
21
P1838 – Par Approved: Thanks Erik Jan Marinissen
First Name
1. Saman
2. Lorena
3. Patrick Y
4. Paolo
5. Sandeep
6. Vivek
7. Eric
8. Adam
9. Al
10. Shinichi
11. Ted
12. Bill
13. Jan Olaf
14. Michelangelo
15. Said
16. Michael
17. Gert
18. Hongshin
19. Rohit
20. Santosh J
21. Philippe
22. Stephane
23. Hans
24. Erik Jan
25. Teresa
26. Ken
27. Herb
28. Mike
29. Andrew
30. Daniel
31. Jochen
32. Volker
33. Eric
34. Thomas
35. Ioannis
36. Min-Jer
37. Lee
Last Name
Adham
Anghel
Au
Bernardi
Bhatia
Chickermane
Cormack
Cron
Crouch
Domae
Eaton
Eklow
Gaudestad
Grosso
Hamdioui
Higgins
Jervan
Jun
Kapur
Kulkarni
Lebourg
Lecomte
Manhaeve
Marinissen
McLaurin
Parker
Reiter
Ricchetti
Richardson
Rishavy
Rivoir
Schöber
Strid
Thaerigen
Voyiatzis
Wang
Whetsel
Affiliation
TSMC
IMAG-TIMA
IBM
Politecnico di Torino
Atrenta
Cadence Design Systems
DfT-Solutions
Synopsys
Asset-Intertech
Panasonic
Cisco
Cisco
Neocera
Politecnico di Torino
Delft University of Technology
Analog Devices
TTU
Cisco
Synopsys
Synopsys
ST Microelectronics
ST-Ericsson
Qstar Test
IMEC
ARM
Agilent Technologies
eda2asic/GSA
AMD
Univ. of Lancaster
TEL
Verigy
edacentrum
Cascade Microtech
SussMicroTec
TEI of Athens
TSMC
Texas Instruments
Job Title
Senior Manager Design Technology
The Study Group that led to the PAR
Assistant Professor
Product Director
Senior Architect, DFT Synthesis and Verification
Man. Director and Principal Trainer and Consultant
Principal Engineer
Chief Technologist, Director of IJTAG R&D
Panasonic resident at imec
Staff Engineer
Distinguished Manufacturing Engineer
Global Sales and Applications Manager
Post-doc researcher
Chair: Erik Jan Marinissen (IMEC)
Vice-Chair: Adam Cron (Synopsys)
Secretary: Sophocles
(AMD)
Senior TestMetsis
Development Engineer
Senior research fellow
Editor (US): Al Crouch
(ASSET)
Technical Leader
Senior R&D
Engineer (U. Siegen)
Editor (EU): Michael
Wahl
DfT senior engineer
SoC DFTmembers
& Test Specialist
Currently: 42 active
CEO
And many more over the past few weeks!
Principal Scientist
DFT Manager and Technical Lead
Senior Scientist
President
DFT Architect
Professor
Product Marketing Manager
System Architect
Head of EDA Cluster Research
Chief Technical Officer
Bus. Man. FA Products and 3D Integration Test
Professor
Test Development Manager
Distinguished Member Technical Staff
BTW October 2011
22
Location
Canada
Grenoble, France
UK
Torino, Italy
San Jose, California, USA
Endicott, New York, USA
Fareham Hampshire, UK
Allentown, Pennsylvania, USA
Austin, Texas, USA
Leuven, Belgium
San Jose, California, USA
San Jose, California, USA
San Francisco, California, USA
Torino, Italy
Delft, the Netherlands
Limerick, Ireland
Tallinn, Estonia
San Jose, California, USA
Mountain View, California, USA
India
Grenoble, France
Grenoble, France
Brugge, Belgium
Leuven, Belgium
Austin, Texas, USA
Loveland, Colorado, USA
California, USA
Boxboro, Massachusetts, USA
Lancaster, UK
Austin, Texas, USA
Boeblingen, Germany
Hannover, Germany
Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Dresden, Germany
Athens, Greece
Hsinchu, Taiwan
Dallas, Texas, USA
The P1838 3D Test Working Group Goal
To investigate whether an IEEE Standard is needed to cover 3D
chips – the consensus was YES! This includes Physical,
Architecture, and Descriptions
5.2 Scope of Proposed Standard: The proposed standard is a ‘die-centric’ standard; it applies to a die that is pre-destined to be part of a multidie stack and such a die can be compliant (or not compliant) to the standard. The proposed standard defines die-level features, that, when compliant
dies are brought together in a stack, comprise a stack-level architecture that enables transportation of control and data signals for the test of (1)
intra-die circuitry and (2) inter-die interconnects in both (a) pre-stacking and (b) post-stacking situations, the latter for both partial and complete
stacks, in both pre-packaging and post-packaging situations. The primary focus of inter-die interconnect technologies addressed by this standard is
Through-Silicon Vias (TSVs); however, this does not preclude its use with other interconnect technologies such as wire-bonding.
The standard will consist of two related items.
1. 3D Test Wrapper On-die hardware features that enable transportation of test (control and data) signals in the following
configurations.
• Pre-stacking: From on-die I/Os to die-internal DfT features, and vice versa.
• Post-stacking
• ‘Turn’ mode: From on-die I/Os to die-internal DfT features, and vice versa. These on-die I/Os might be external I/Os and/or inter-die
interconnections coming from (or going to) an adjacent die.
• ‘Elevator’ mode: From on-die I/Os, through THIS DIE, to the inter-die interconnections to an adjacent die, and vice versa. These on-die
I/Os might be external I/Os and/or inter-die interconnections coming from (or going to) another adjacent die.
2. Description A description of the Test Wrapper features in a standardized human- and computer-readable language. This
description should allow the usage of the die within a multi-die stack for test and test access purposes.
BTW October 2011
23
Current Status
Just finished defining the “per-die” requirements
Must have an access mechanism
Must be able to be tested in a standalone manner
Must support 4 access functions (Bypass, Turnaround,
On-Die, and Next-Die)
Next step is to define the “per-stack” requirements
Must test the connectivity of TSV’s between Die
Must verify the die in the stack (e.g. Die-ID’s)
Must verify the order of dies in the stack
Must verify the number of die in the stack
SWDFT Tutorial 2011
24
Will IEEE Standards be involved?
1149.1 is the Base Standard that provides the “protocol”
Instruction-Based
Register-Based
Defines the “State-Machine”
Defined to assist with Board Test
Described with BSDL/SVF
1500 is a derivation used for Core Test
Instruction-Based
Register-Based
Defined to assist with Cores (Virtual Chips)
Described with CTL/STIL
1687 is a departure to address certain weaknesses in 1149.1/1500
Vectors are defined for the Instrument
Mixes Instruction and Data
Network-Based (variable length scan paths)
Described with ICL/PDL
1149.7 can reduce 1149.1’s TAP to just 2 Pins
Defines a TDMA packet protocol
BTW October 2011
25
3D P1687 SIB Access Architecture
TDI
TDO
TCK
Select
ShiftEn
CaptEn
UpdEn
RST
Top Interface of Die
WSIb
TDIb
Sb
TDOb
U
b
Turn-Around or
Next-Die Access
Select-b
ab
00
01
10
11
WSOb
TDIa
WSIa
Sa
TDOa
U
a
=
=
=
=
turnaround (2-bit)
next-die (2-bit bypass)
on-die access only
on-die + next-die access
Select-a
WSOa
On-Die Access
Bottom Interface of Die
TDI
TDO
TCK
Select
BTW October 2011
26
ShiftEn
CaptEn
UpdEn
RST
The 1500 3D-WIR
TDI
SWIR
TDO
Up
TCK
Select
ShiftEn
CaptEn
UpdEn
RST
No TDI-TDO Strap Needed on Down Instructions
Next-Die Access
Next (1)
0
Instructions:
Up = Next, Byp, WBR-Upper,
On-Die-Shared, SWIR
Byp (1)
WBR-Upper
Down = Turnaround,
WBR-Lower, On-Die-Only
WBR-Lower
On-Die (n)
Turnaround (1)
WSO
W
I
R
WSI
Turn-Around
SWIR
Down
TDI
SWIR
TDO
TCK
Select
BTW October 2011
27
ShiftEn
CaptEn
UpdEn
RST
The 1149.1 3D TAP
No TDI-TDO Strap Needed on Down Instructions
TDI
TMS
Up
TCK
TDO
Next-Die Access
Up
Next (1)
Instructions:
Up = Next (On-Die-Shared),
Bypass, WBR-Upper,
1
Byp (1)
WBR-Upper
WBR-Lower
Down = Turnaround,
WBR-Lower, On-Die-Only
On-Die (n)
Turnaround (1)
TDI
TDO
Do all TAPS need to be 100% Synch’ed
or can a Synch Process (RTI) be used?
IR
TAP
SM
TDI
Turn-Around
Down
TMS
TCK
TDO
BTW October 2011
28
The Multi-Access-Mechanism – Mixed Access
TDI
TCK
TDO
TCK
SiBa
EIB
SelectWI
R
Select
ShiftEn
CaptEn
UpdEn
RST
Up Instructions
&
Down Instructions
Next (1)
Byp (1)
WBR-Upper
WBR-Lower
On-Die (n)
Turnaround (1)
IR
TDI
TMS
Upper Die with 1500
TDO
TMS
SelectWI
R
Select
ShiftEn
CaptEn
UpdEn
RST
Upper Die with 1687
SiBb
TDI
TCK
TDO
TMS
TCK
Select
ShiftEn
CaptEn
UpdEn
RST
Up Instructions
&
Down Instructions
Next (1)
Byp (1)
WBR-Upper
WBR-Lower
On-Die (n)
Turnaround (1)
IR
TDI
SelectWI
R
TAP
SM
Base Die with TAP
TDO
TMS
Board Pin Connections
BTW October 2011
29
Will 3D Silicon Integration become real?
No Conclusion
You Decide!
[email protected]
BTW October 2011
30