Makefile vs. YAML: Modernizing verification simulation flows

Makefile vs. YAML: Modernizing Verification Simulation Flows

Automation plays a crucial role in today's SystemVerilog/UVM verification environments. As designs grow from smaller modules to complex system-on-chips (SoCs), engineers depend on scripting to manage compilation, simulation, and regression tests. The quality of these automated flows directly affects verification accuracy, turnaround times, and team efficiency.

Limitations of Makefile in Verification

For many years, Makefile has been the standard tool for handling these tasks. Its rule-based format and broad availability made it a simple way to compile RTL, run simulations, and perform regressions. This method worked well for smaller testbenches with straightforward configurations.

However, with the surge in verification complexity, Makefile weaknesses have become obvious. Combining execution rules with fixed test configurations results in fragile scripts that are hard to scale or reuse across different projects. Moreover, debugging Makefiles, often heavy in syntax, frequently consumes more time than creating new tests, drawing focus away from coverage and functional objectives.

YAML as a Modern Alternative

YAML, a structured and human-readable configuration language, offers a more modular solution when paired with Python for execution. It overcomes many of Makefile's drawbacks, making automation flows easier to maintain and extend.

"YAML, a structured configuration language, addresses many of these shortcomings when paired with Python for execution."

This approach enhances script readability and supports better reuse, contributing to improved verification processes.

Author's Summary

The shift from Makefile to YAML-based automation enhances clarity, scalability, and efficiency in complex verification workflows.

Would you like the HTML to include specific styling or remain plain?

EDN — 2025-11-04