2.2. CrossRAM03Fabricated1May87A.dale
This file was made by editing CrossRAM03Fabricated4Feb86CMosB.dale (see Section 2.1.). It was converted from ChipNDale23 format to ChipNDale24 format by reading it into ChipNDale24.
I also cleaned up the design structure by replacing references to DecoderZero@<number> with references to DecoderZero and similarly for DecoderOne and DecoderLeft. Then I fixed the nwell design rule violations attributable to these cells.
Note that this version of the CrossRAM03 should now follow the Dragon CMOS Design Rules. However, we haven't actually done a comprehensive DRC of the design lately. Anyhow, as of March 13, 1987, the Dragon project decided to adopt the VTI Design Rules, at least for new designs. Eventually, it might be nice to have a CrossRAM that follows the VTI rules, but I decided that it would be too painful to do that for the May 1987 foundry run. Here's what would have to be done:
o To observe the more conservative rule about spacing between p+ and n+ across a well boundary, the number of rows would have to be decreased.
o To avoid the use of angle transistors, new memory cells would have to be used; this would likely decrease the number of rows and increase the number of columns. (Angle transistors aren't explicitly forbidden in VTI's rules, but VTI says over the phone that they'd rather not see them, especially for the 1.6-micron process.)
o It would be possible to use the more aggressive rules about metal1 and metal2 widths, but it would not be mandatory. (On the other hand, if design rule minimum dimensions are not extensively used, one can argue that the CrossRAM is not a good test.)
o The test software has to be changed to track the layout changes.
Clearly, the switch to VTI rules should be done (if at all) in the context of CrossRAM04, so that we can take advantage of layout generation software that works.