Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Scan chains (was: control co-processor)
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 21:08:41 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <vvemc9$jl19$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vbgdms$152jq$1@dont-email.me>
 <2025Apr23.194456@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <126700f99b6f97d7483bb5355d68c361@www.novabbs.org>
 <vucbbe$mvlc$1@dont-email.me> <vul4r4$n19o$1@dont-email.me>
 <0b410ad93124778a2b1b3ab8fb6ec62c@www.novabbs.org>
 <vumpcl$2a0rl$1@dont-email.me>
 <54dcb50f7a378240447d3565f083f0bc@www.novabbs.org>
 <vupbrk$jpqb$1@dont-email.me> <vv9ffe$3lupq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vva299$7csk$1@dont-email.me> <5j3SP.1331$RXsc.334@fx36.iad>
 <jwvikmfupga.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
 <dy5SP.217091$7IN2.105034@fx15.iad>
 <jwvwmatqg1u.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 06:08:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9a484f1f2ea886b833344ccb281c8215";
	logging-data="644137"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Z+Q3+Gktx/i3Rtr0TnOTb"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Mfhwr21fw1HFgNhOEnZs+bx+4zE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <jwvwmatqg1u.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
Bytes: 2061

On 5/6/25 8:12 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:

> What's the approximate cost of those scan chains.  I.e. if we were to
> take an existing working design and replace all the "flip-flop with
> scan-chain" with "plain flip-flops", how much smaller would the
> resulting chip be, how much faster could it run, and how much less power
> could it consume?


I wouldn't matter because it wouldn't be testable in production.