Increasing FPGA System Reliability

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

In this column, I will look at what we can do within the FPGA and at the hardware/system level to increase reliability.

Focusing on the FPGA implementation first, there are numerous ways the design can be corrupted, depending on the end environment. This corruption could be the result of a single-event upset (SEU), a single-event functional interrupt (SEFI), or even data corruption from a number of sources.

An SEU occurs when a data bit (register or memory) is hit by radiation and flips from a 0 to a 1, or vice versa. A SEFI is where a control register or other critical register suffers a bit flip that locks up the system. In the world of SRAM-based FPGAs, we tend to consider an SEFI when one of the SRAM cells holding the device’s configuration flips and changes the design’s implementation. Data corruption can occur for a number of reasons, including EMI (electromagnetic interference) affecting the design in an industrial application.

How can we protect these systems and increase a unit’s MTBF? Depending on the end application, it may be acceptable simply to duplicate the logic — create two instantiations of the design within the same device — and to indicate an error if the results do not match. The higher-level system would be in charge of deciding what to do in the event of such an error.

The next thing we can do is to implement triple modular redundancy (TMR) within the device. At the simplest level, this instantiates the same design three times within the FPGA. A majority vote — two out of three — decides the result. (Even though this might sound simple, implementing it can become very complex very quickly.) If one instantiation of the design becomes corrupted, the error will be masked. Depending on the kind of error, the device may clear itself on the next calculation, or it may require reconfiguration.

Implementing TMR can be performed by hand, which can be time-consuming, or using tools such as the TMRTool from Xilinx (this site’s sponsor) or the BL-TMR from Brigham Young University. If TMR is implemented correctly (and you have to be careful about synthesis optimizations), the design should mask all SEUs, as long as only one is present at any particular time.

Memory blocks inside the FPGA may also use error-correcting code technology to detect and correct SEUs. However, to ensure you really have good data, you need to perform memory scrubbing. This involves accessing the memory when it is not being used for other purposes, reading out the data, checking the error detection and correction code, and (if necessary) writing back the corrected data. Common tools here include Hamming codes that allow double-error detection and single-error correction.

This nicely leads us to the concept of scrubbing the entire FPGA. Depending on your end application, you might be able to simply reconfigure the FPGA each time before it is used. For example, a radar imaging system taking an image could reconfigure the FPGA between images to prevent corruption. If the FPGA’s performance is more mission-critical or uptime-critical, you can monitor the FPGA’s configuration by reading back the configuration data over the configuration interface. If any errors are detected, the entire device may be reconfigured, or partial reconfiguration may be used to target a specific portion of the design. Of course, all this requires a supervising device or system.

Of course, it will take significant analysis to determine how any of the methods that have been mentioned thus far affects MTBF. The complexity of this analysis will depend on the environment in which the system is intended to operate.

Working at the module level, we as engineers can take a number of steps to increase reliability. The first is to introduce redundancy, either within the module itself (e.g., extra processing chains) or by duplicating the module in its entirity.

If you are implementing redundancy, you have two options: hot and cold. Each has advantages and disadvantages, and implementing either option will be a system-level decision.

In the case of hot redundancy, both the prime and redundant devices (to keep things simple, I am assuming one-for-two redundancy) are powered up, with the redundant module configured ready to replace the prime should it fail. This has the advantage of a more or less seamless transition. However, since the redundant unit is operating alongside the prime, it is also aging and might fail.

In the case of cold redundancy, the prime unit is powered and operating while the redundant unit is powered down. This means the redundant module is not subject to as many aging stresses and, to a large extent, is essentially new when it is turned on. However, this comes at the expense of having some amount of down time if the prime module fails and the redundant module must be switched in.

With careful analysis of your system, you can identify the key drivers; i.e., which components have a high failure rate and are hurting system reliability. Power supply is often a key driver. Therefore, it is often advisable to implement a redundant power supply architecture that can power the same electronics, often in a one-out-of-two setup.

If you are implementing redundancy at the data path, module, or system level, the number of data paths, modules, or systems you employ will impact the new failure rate. For example, 12-for-8 systems will give you a lower failure rate than 10-for-8 systems. Of course, redundancy comes the expense of cost, size, weight, power consumption, and so forth. A very good interactive Website for this analysis can be found by clicking here.

When implementing redundancy at either the system or module level, it is crucial that both prime and redundant modules cannot have faults that can keep each other from working. Fault propagation has to be considered, and prime and redundant modules must be isolated from each other.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *