AN 866: Mitigating and Debugging Single Event Upsets in Intel® Quartus® Prime Standard Edition

Download PDF
ID 683869
Date 9/28/2021
Public
Document Table of Contents
Document Table of Contents x
1. Mitigating Single Event Upset 2. Debugging Single Event Upset Using the Fault Injection Debugger
1. Mitigating Single Event Upset x
1.1. Failure Rates 1.2. Mitigating SEU Effects in Embedded User RAM 1.3. Mitigating SEU Effects in Configuration RAM 1.4. Internal Scrubbing 1.5. SEU Recovery 1.6. Intel® Quartus® Prime Software SEU FIT Reports 1.7. Triple-Module Redundancy 1.8. Evaluating a System's Response to Functional Upsets 1.9. CRAM Error Detection Settings Reference 1.10. Document Revision History
1.2. Mitigating SEU Effects in Embedded User RAM x
1.2.1. Configuring RAM to Enable ECC
1.5. SEU Recovery x
1.5.1. Planning for SEU Recovery 1.5.2. Designating the Sensitivity of the Design Hierarchy 1.5.3. Advanced SEU Detection IP Core
1.5.2. Designating the Sensitivity of the Design Hierarchy x
1.5.2.1. Hierarchy Tagging 1.5.2.2. Using Partitions to Specify Logic Sensitivity ID
1.5.3. Advanced SEU Detection IP Core x
1.5.3.1. On-Chip Sensitivity Processor 1.5.3.2. External Sensitivity Processor
1.6. Intel® Quartus® Prime Software SEU FIT Reports x
1.6.1. SEU FIT Parameters Report 1.6.2. Projected SEU FIT by Component Usage Report 1.6.3. Enabling the Projected SEU FIT by Component Usage Report
1.6.2. Projected SEU FIT by Component Usage Report x
1.6.2.1. Component FIT Rates 1.6.2.2. Raw FIT 1.6.2.3. Utilized FIT 1.6.2.4. Mitigated FIT 1.6.2.5. Architectural Vulnerability Factor
1.6.2.3. Utilized FIT x
1.6.2.3.1. Comparing .smh Critical Bits Report to Utilized Bit Count 1.6.2.3.2. Considerations for Small Designs
2. Debugging Single Event Upset Using the Fault Injection Debugger x
2.1. Single Event Upset Mitigation 2.2. Hardware and Software Requirements 2.3. Using the Fault Injection Debugger and IP Core 2.4. Document Revision History
2.3. Using the Fault Injection Debugger and IP Core x
2.3.1. Instantiating the IP Core 2.3.2. Defining Fault Injection Areas 2.3.3. Using the Fault Injection Debugger 2.3.4. Command-Line Interface
2.3.1. Instantiating the IP Core x
2.3.1.1. About the EMR Unloader IP Core 2.3.1.2. About the Advanced SEU Detection IP Core
2.3.2. Defining Fault Injection Areas x
2.3.2.1. Performing Hierarchy Tagging 2.3.2.2. About SMH Files
2.3.3. Using the Fault Injection Debugger x
2.3.3.1. Configuring Your Device and the Fault Injection Debugger 2.3.3.2. Constraining Regions for Fault Injection 2.3.3.3. Specifying Error Types 2.3.3.4. Injecting Errors 2.3.3.5. Recording Errors 2.3.3.6. Clearing Injected Errors
2.3.4. Command-Line Interface x
2.3.4.1. Targeted Fault Injection Feature 2.3.4.2. Advanced Command-Line Options: ASD Regions and Error Type Weighting
2.3.4.1. Targeted Fault Injection Feature x
2.3.4.1.1. Specifying an Error List From the Command Line 2.3.4.1.2. Specifying an Error List From Prompt Mode 2.3.4.1.3. Determining CRAM Bit Locations
1. Mitigating Single Event Upset
2. Debugging Single Event Upset Using the Fault Injection Debugger

1.6.2.3.2. Considerations for Small Designs

The raw FIT for the entire device is always correct. In contrast, the utilized FIT is very conservative, and only becomes accurate for designs that reasonably fill up the chosen device. FPGAs contain overhead, such as the configuration state machine, the clock network control logic, and the I/O calibration block. These infrastructure blocks contain flip flops, memories, and sometimes I/O configuration blocks.

The Projected SEU FIT by Component report includes the constant overhead for GPIO and HSSI calibration circuitry for first I/O block or transceiver the design uses. Because of this overhead, the FIT of a 1-transceiver design is much higher than 1/10 the FIT of a 10-transceiver design. However, a trivial design such as “a single AND gate plus flipflop” could use so few bits that its CRAM FIT rate is 0.01, which the report rounds to zero.

Level Two Title