main repo is here: https://github.com/google/gf180mcu-pdk

Interesting, as a newbie what would be the advantage of going with GF over the 130nm process?

If you already have a project for SKY130, it's a great opportunity to try out the portability of your design!

I was looking at the process stack diagrams and oh wow, this PDK has 45 variants. 2 - 6 metal layers and a MiM option. https://gf180mcu-pdk.readthedocs.io/en/latest/analog/layout/inter_specs/inter_specs_3.html

@Tim Edwards Are you going to add this process to the shuttle list?

If efabless is going to even consider it at some point it would be nice if could specify a PDK variant

@Zachary Curtis: The GF process should be cheaper than the SkyWater process (although I have not seen the pricing). That wouldn't affect the open-MPW runs, which are free to users, but it might impact how many free runs Google can pay for. More runs, more chance for a user to get on the shuttle. I think users should evaluate the size and scope of their designs; if you're doing something that is not so large or cutting-edge, then choosing the GF process is not only likely to increase the chance that you can get on the shuttle run, but it will also help others by increasing the availability of the sky130 shuttle to designers who are using some of that process' unique features like SONOS or ReRAM.

Gotcha yeah that makes sense, thank you. :)

@Weston Braun: Work on support for multiple processes and variants is ongoing, after the Openlane developers unwisely coded themselves into a corner by hard-coding sky130 into a number of scripts. Open_pdks quietly added support for GF180MCU two days ago, and I'm still not advertising it because the Google repository is still in flux (as in, currently broken in various major ways).

And now GF180 has Magic!

Is the name 'GF180' is appropriate for this PDK when there's no 180 device and logic library? Maybe this process is very good for PMIC designs with relatively simple logic circuits. But the name is somewhat confusing.