1
\$\begingroup\$

How would you generate clock jitter in a testbench?

I have seen these two ways, but I am not sure if they are the best ways:

always #(period/2+$random(-jitter/2,jitter/2) ) clk = ~clk;

always #(period/2+$dist_uniform(seed,-jitter,jitter)) clk = ~clk;
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ It really depends on what your testbench is trying to test by introducing jitter. Are there multiple clocks that need to keep in phase, then you need to make sure the overall frequency remains the same and just move the edges. \$\endgroup\$ – dave_59 Jun 27 '19 at 1:41
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Define "best". Also, define what it is you hope to learn by simulating jitter. I've never seen the point -- If you think you have potential setup/hold violations, static timing analysis is a much more useful tool. If you're trying to determine the jitter transfer characteristics of a system, there are more direct ways to analyze that, too. Otherwise, you have to run a very long simulation in order to gather a statistically significant amount of data. \$\endgroup\$ – Dave Tweed Jun 27 '19 at 12:22
0
\$\begingroup\$

random generates pseudo-random numbers between -jitter/2 and jitter/2 but as far as I know there is no constraint on the distribution of the numbers. So the "randomness" of the numbers might be crappy, i.e. there might be an obvious pattern for the random numbers generated.

dist_uniform as the name implies generate random numbers uniformly (uniform distribution) between -jitter and jitter.

What kind of jitter are you expecting? Gaussian jitter? In that case you should use a normal distribution.

Secondly, why do you need to simulate jitter? You want to test potential race conditions due to sampling?

I'm not sure that a Verilog simulation is the best tool for that problem...

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.