search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Column: Silicon systems design


The new design- for-testability landscape for chiplets


By Mike Bartley, CEO, Alpinum C


hiplet-based architectures are shaping the next generation of semiconductor design: Instead of fabricating a single monolithic device,


designers increasingly assemble multiple specialised dies into a single package. This improves yield, modularity and scaleability, but it also increases the complexity of the test. Traditional Design for Testability


(DFT) methodologies were created for monolithic ICs and did not account for multi-die integration, heterogeneous IP sourcing or high-density die-to-die


communication. For chiplets to scale, DFT must be defined at the architectural level rather than introduced late in the design cycle.


Chiplets disrupt traditional DFT In a monolithic device, controllability and observability are predictable and local. Scan insertion, automatic test pattern generation (ATPG), built-in self-test (BIST) and boundary scan give structured access to internal logic even after packaging. These assumptions no longer hold


in a multi-die chiplet system. Logic is distributed across dies that don’t share


Figure 1: A 2.5D chiplet assembly showing chiplets on a silicon interposer with microbumps and TSVs (Image: Jinwoo Kim and co-authors)


the same routing topology, physical interfaces or process technology. Interconnect may pass through interposers, microbumps or through- silicon via (TSV) based vertical links, each of which introducing points where visibility can be lost. Figure 1 shows how chiplets are mounted on a silicon interposer using microbumps, TSVs and C4 bumps, highlighting the physical interfaces where test visibility can degrade in multi-die systems. Chiplets disrupt classical DFT in


three fundamental ways: First, internal visibility becomes inconsistent because individual dies may not expose uniform test interfaces or wrapper structures. Second, defects may occur between dies rather than inside them, making interconnect validation as critical as die-level testing. Third, conventional scan chains were never designed to cross package boundaries or validate high- speed die-to-die fabrics. As packaging density increases, the


limitations of classical DFT become more pronounced. Multi-die assemblies, therefore, require architectural test support beyond traditional boundary scan and must adopt standardised access mechanisms defined for stacked and modular devices. In essence, classical DFT remains


essential, but its effectiveness declines as architectural complexity increases. Greater logic depth increases pattern count, test time and automated test equipment (ATE) costs. JTAG Boundary Scan Standard IEEE 1149.x is valuable for pin access but insufficient for buried interconnect structures inside chiplet assemblies. Mixed-node integration and heterogeneous IP reuse can further create inconsistencies in test structures, unless alignment is enforced at the architectural stage. Access points often fail to penetrate


stacked regions, and controllability mechanisms that work well within a single die do not naturally extend across


16 December 2025/January 2026 www.electronicsworld.co.uk


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48