[ibis-macro] Re: How would you model this On Die Termination? (continuation from Question on dividing up the Tx behavior thread)
- From: Scott McMorrow <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: james.zhou@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 17:28:06 -0500
James
Your fundamental assumption may be incorrect. The Tx driver is a high
impedance current source that is isolated from the channel by a terminated
T-coil. The node that the driver is attached should be "by-design" a high
impedance node. What Terry does not show in his circuit drawing is that
the two inductors on either side of the termination are coupled spiral
inductors.
Regards,
Scott
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM, James Zhou <james.zhou@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Terry, ****
>
> ** **
>
> I am not the expert but would like to offer my "0.02" on this topic. ****
>
> ** **
>
> If we name the differential Tx driver current summing nodes as
> <TDO+,TDO->, it is obvious that the voltages at TDO are dependent on the
> loading at Tx PKG output (i.e. input impedance of the channel). This is a
> very basic concept in circuit design and there is nothing new about it. **
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Now if we can agree that the waveforms at TDO are dependent on the
> loading at Tx PKG output, then there are several subsequent questions one
> must answer when creating TDO waveforms: ****
>
> (1) what loading can (or should) be put at Tx pkg output when generating
> TDO waveforms?****
>
> (2) is it necessary and if so, how to inform the users and EDA tools about
> the loading impedance?****
>
> (3) under what conditions can we assume that the impact to TDO waveform
> caused by channel loading at Tx PKG output is negligible and, is it
> actually the case in real silicon/package design? What are the errors
> caused by this assumption?****
>
> ** **
>
> Existing IBIS ATM BIRDs propose to enforce isolation between Tx AMI output
> (TDO) and channel loading. Regardless of the implementation details, the
> "isolation" approach forcefully make TDO waveform "independent" of the
> channel loading, which is equivalent to say that the impact of channel
> loading to TDO waveform is negligible.****
>
> ** **
>
> There are established methods to model this circuit rigorously in the most
> general case (when loading is not negligible). That would require the
> knowledge of the output impedance of Tx Driver. This is the impedance
> looking from the location of "current summing" arrow towards the left. I
> have not seen such proposals at IBIS ATM. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Based on IBIS 5.0 and various existing BIRDs for 5.1 and 5.2, I think this
> circuit can be modeled by the following approach: ****
>
> (1) choose TDO nodes as Tx AMI output and, Tx analog input****
>
> (2) obtain Tx AMI waveform at TDO nodes by loading the Tx PKG with 50ohms
> or any other impedance of choice. The loading impedance used in obtaining
> TDO waveform should be recorded in ibis file. ****
>
> (3) provide Tx Term circuit in IBIS [External Circuit] or [External Model}
> keywords using one of the supported languages, such as Spice, IBIS-ISS or
> Touchstone.****
>
> ** **
>
> This flow allows the model creator to provide accurate waveform at Tx AMI
> output and, true-to-silicon Tx analog circuitry without any unnecessary
> restrictions and assumptions. It would require minor changes to the IBIS
> Spec by forcing the disclosure of load impedance used in TDO waveform
> simulations. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Alternatively, you may put the T-Coil circuit and the caps inside the Tx
> Driver block and have two short wires (i.e. all pass filter) linking Tx
> driver to Tx pkg. This is the approach David and you have mentioned in
> earlier emails. Strictly speaking there is nothing wrong to use such
> structures in circuit or channel simulations. However this may not be the
> best way to fit into the existing IBIS AMI flow for reasons stated above.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Best Regards,****
>
> James Zhou****
>
> QLogic Corp.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Chen, Terry
> *Sent:* Friday, March 09, 2012 6:28 AM
> *To:* IBIS-ATM
> *Subject:* [ibis-macro] How would you model this On Die Termination?
> (continuation from Question on dividing up the Tx behavior thread)****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi IBIS experts,****
>
> ** **
>
> I have been getting a ton of great feedbacks on why it may be a bad idea
> to model the TX driver with as an ideal output step function (b/c it will
> not model the impedance mismatch and reflections properly). To clarify, I
> have roughly sketched my TX output driver and the T-Coil “like” ODT
> structure, and attached it as a picture in order to serve as a point for
> further discussion. I have also sketched how I am “attempting” to model it.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> So the question I have is:****
>
> **1. **How would you model this?****
>
> **2. **Can you do this using original IBIS 5.0 directives and still
> get the frequency dependent effect of my ODT? ****
>
> ** **
>
> I had (possibly mistakenly) thought that this is not possible with IBIS
> 5.0, so I proceeded down the path of factoring out the term and the
> parasitics as S4P.****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> Terry Chen****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ------------------------------
> This message and any attached documents contain information from QLogic
> Corporation or its wholly-owned subsidiaries that may be confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or
> use this information. If you have received this transmission in error,
> please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this
> message.
>
--
Scott McMorrow
Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
121 North River Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882
(401) 284-1827 Business
(401) 284-1840 Fax
http://www.teraspeed.com
Teraspeed® is the registered service mark of
Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
Other related posts:
