Skip to content

RFC: plan DDR escapes with movable decouplers - #4948

Draft
seveibar wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
codex/propose-ddr-escape-planning
Draft

seveibar wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
codex/propose-ddr-escape-planning

Conversation

@seveibar

@seveibar seveibar commented Oct 27, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Status: this RFC is an isolated experiment, not a production routing implementation. The concrete solver implementation and fresh 47/47 DDR routing proof are now tracked in bus-lanes-solver #102. That PR does not yet implement automatic capacitor relocation or establish whole-board completion.

DDR routing can fail before carrier search because nearby decouplers leave no legal BGA escape. This proposes a bounded placement preflight that moves only eligible capacitors, verifies a collective escape assignment, and passes owned escape reservations to downstream routing.

Includes an executable experimental planner, a six-layer AM3352 fixture with RAM at (0, -25) mm, native validation reports, integration/rollout details, and reproduction instructions. Production routing defaults are unchanged; the experiment directory is excluded from the library TypeScript project.

Independent evidence

  • A control retaining the previous manual capacitor nudges already had feasible escapes; no improvement there.
  • On the new-layout regression with those nudges removed, the planner recovered joint 47/47 escape feasibility from 45/47 individually escapable connections. It independently selected C_U1_K8 +0.3 mm Y and C_DDR11 +0.5 mm Y in 97 assessments / 176.185 seconds.
  • The complete-DDR control failed escape assignment in 1.559 seconds. After planning, it advanced to shared-layer routing but timed out at 120 seconds.
  • A fresh 11-connection byte lane passed all 11 native checks and the length/skew/clearance checks. Neither all 47 DDR connections nor the whole board completed.

Validation and limits

The planner test and targeted strict TypeScript check pass. The fixture uses a different placement of the earlier populated AM3352 circuit, including USB and power circuitry; it is not a new schematic. Both proposal experiments use the same pinned solver plus a disclosed common investigation patch, so these results are not a clean-upstream speed benchmark. The other proposal's supervisor is not used here.

This remains draft: the requested independent complete-board proof is still outstanding. The proposal also requires decoupling electrical constraints, persisted escape reservations, faster incremental assessment, and held-out complete-board regressions before rollout.

See proposal and reproduction instructions and machine-readable evidence.

@vercel

vercel Bot commented Oct 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Actions Updated
tscircuit-core-benchmarks Ready Ready Preview Oct 27, 2026 6:36am UTC

Request Review

This branch was successfully deployed

1 active deployment
Preview — 57b8b75a Deployed Oct 27, 2026 by vercel[bot]
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant