[ibis-macro] Re: Analog Buffer Modeling - A Summary
- From: Ambrish Varma <ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:10:27 -0800
Walter,
I am very intrigued by questions 5 and 6. The answers to both the questions can
be a 'No' today but the real question back to you is
A) Can you say for sure that 1, 2, 5 years down the road, we will not need new
reserved models to describe the new analog LTI circuit of the times?
I suspect the answer to that question would be a 'No' as well. Hence the next
question:
B) Is it better to propose language that works today, and work 1, 2, 5 years
from now as well, or is it better to take short cuts today, and worry about the
future when we come to it?
We are trying to write an Industry Standard that should encompass short term
and long term goals and not merely writing specifications to satisfy existing
norms.
It seems to me more and more that AMI_Thevenin_Tx, or AMI_Thevenin_Rx should be
examples in the Standard, rather than the Standard itself. As for
AMI_Tstonefile_Tx, AMI_Tstonefile_Rx, these keywords are AMI centric and can
very well be replaced by a general solution as proposed in other BIRDs.
Thanks and Regards,
Ambrish.
[cid:image002.gif@01CCD5E2.8C404850]
Ambrish Varma | Member of Consulting Staff
P: 978.262.6431 www.cadence.com<http://www.cadence.com>
________________________________
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Walter Katz
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 12:36 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Analog Buffer Modeling - A Summary
All,
I will attend next Tuesday's meeting and will be prepared to discuss the
following. I will also be prepared to make a presentation to the IBIS Summit on
any of the following that you do not agree with:
1. LTI vs Non-LTI Modeling
a. I will propose that we table any IBIS-ATM discussion until someone can
present to IBIS a Channel that:
i. Channel
1. A real IC Vendor SerDes Tx and Rx buffer
2. A real Tx and Rx Package
3. A real interconnect
ii. When analyzing the Channel using
1. Non-LTI Vendor Models
2. An LTI approximation of the Models
iii. Give results that are different enough to cause the design engineer
to make substantively different design decisions.
2. Can anyone provide an IBIS SerDes Tx and Rx Buffer that has a constant
impedance over the operating range of the Buffer that cannot be accurately
represented by either the proposed AMI_Thevenin_Tx and AMI_Thevenin_Rx model?
Please note the following subtle limitation of BIRD 116 described in 3.
3. [External Model]/Language ISS assumes that the Analog Model LTI.
Therefore any Non-LTI affects that are caused by time variation that is
captured in the IBIS Rising and Falling Waveforms. The only way to handle this
is to change the D_to_A to contain a PWL.
4. Can anyone provide an ISS subckt that represents a Tx or Rx ISS SerDes
buffer model that cannot be converted to an accurate Touchstone file?
5. Can anyone point to an industry standard SerDes specification (e.g.
PCIeG3, PCIeG4, IEEE 802.3 bj, ap, kr) that does not specify constrains on the
analog behavior that cannot be represented by the proposed AMI_Thevenin_Tx and
AMI_Thevenin_Rx model?
6. Does anyone disagree that any Tx or Rx analog LTI model can be
represented by one of the proposed models ( AMI_Tstonefile_Tx,
AMI_Tstonefile_Rx, AMI_Thevenin_Tx, or AMI_Thevenin_Rx model?
Walter
Walter Katz
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Phone 303.449-2308
Mobile 720.333-1107
Other related posts:
