[ibis-macro] Re: Query on AMI BIRD
- From: Huang chunxing <huangchunxing@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Mike Steinberger <msteinb@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:43:12 +0800
Hi Mike,
As a IBIS user, what I am doing it to wonder whether the IBIS model could meet
the further requirements of us and I also wish AMI model will be a successful
model. I have no intention to offend you or any expert here. In contrast, I
really respect everyone's work to promoting development of serial link
simulation techniques. AMI model is good solution to many problems which we are
facing. But I am still willing to share my opinion about AMI. Althoug, some
idea is not so mature.
Due to limitation of current encrypted model, we have to omit important
components in serial link. Also it is extremely difficult for us to do jitter
simulation. We have to analyze the results based on some guess.
Encrypted model simulation is time consuming work and the time depends on the
model complexity. It's not practical to realize million bit level simulation.
Equalization optimization is also another great ability which further help
itself succeed. After we discussed it, we only get the parameter sweep method.
I don't have any solution to this problem and hope there will be a solution.
Parameter sweep is method which depends on the speed of model. What I am
afraid is whether AMI model from chip vendors could support this function and
the speed of non-LTI model is fast engough. I guess the data one million bits
per minute from your model is based on impulse response process method.
As for jitter simulation techniques, I still believe that different jitter have
different characteristics and requires different method. Sigma level is mostly
a factor of RJ and DJ is boundary. It something like TJ peak to peak
calculation.
TJ_PP@BER=DJ_PP+2*Q(BER)* s
I think the sigma level needed in simulation is related with link BER
requirement. One may calculate the sigma level from BER through inverse error
function.
Thanks for your patience and reply. As you suggested, I will shut up my mouth.
Regards,
Huang
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
Tel: 86 755 28976229
FAX: 86 755 28976758
Email: huangchunxing@xxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.huawei.com
Warning: The information contained in electronic mail message is intended
only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s)
named
above. It may be privileged and confidential. If you have received this
communication
in error, please destroy any and all copies of this message including
attached
files in your possession.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Steinberger
To: Huang chunxing
Cc: C. Kumar ; IBIS-ATM
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ibis-macro] Re: Query on AMI BIRD
Huang-
Regarding equalization optimization, it is true that if you have enough time
and/or compute resources, you can do just about anything in SPICE, including
equalization optimization. The real question, as you suggest, is the amount of
time required to get the job done. With our AMI models, we're simulating of the
order of one million bits per minute. My experience to date has been that
that's fast enough to gain insight by iterating through many solutions. I
invite you to consider how long it would take to simulate a million bits in
SPICE; and please be assured that, as personnel from both IBM and TI have
pointed out, a million bits is required.
As regards jitter simulation, part of the question is whether one is
concerned with the bulk of the jitter, such as perhaps two to three sigma from
the mean, or whether one is concerned with rarer events, such as perhaps seven
sigma from the mean (and therefore corresponding to a probability of 1e-12).
While time domain simulations may be sufficient for offsets of two to three
sigma, they are impractical for offsets of seven sigma. Furthermore, I suggest
that attempting to extrapolate from three sigma to seven sigma is not going to
yield reliable results. There are other methods, however, that will yield more
reliable results for low probability events.
I suggest that we've come to a point where we have an adequate mutual
understanding, and that further discussion should wait until we have specific
results to discuss. In that regard, if you have data you could share with the
committee that would help us understand what methods are already yielding
satisfactory results for an acceptable level of effort, that would be very
useful.
Thanks.
Mike Steinberger
Huang chunxing wrote:
Hi Mike and Kumar,
Thank you for your both answers.
Global optimization is really difficult, or may be impossible. Here is one of
the AMI model target,
The proposed modeling solution must:
- Support automatic optimization of device settings based on simulation
I agree that AMI model could support optimization. But, in my opinion, AMI
model didn't give much extra advantages on automatic equalization optimization
over Spice encrypted model as I expected. If AMI model is fast enough for
equalization parameter sweep, this maybe one practical way to do optimization
work.
Jitter simulation techniques is another problem. Different jitter may have
different suitable simulation way. As for DCD jitter, I prefer to the way to
modulate DCD on data waveform and simulate it bit-by-bit. Other methods based
on approximate algorithmic model may be not so accurate.
Regards,
Huang
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
Tel: 86 755 28976229
FAX: 86 755 28976758
Email: huangchunxing@xxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.huawei.com
Warning: The information contained in electronic mail message is intended
only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s)
named
above. It may be privileged and confidential. If you have received this
communication
in error, please destroy any and all copies of this message including
attached
files in your possession.
----- Original Message -----
From: "C. Kumar" <ckumar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <huangchunxing@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "IBIS-ATM" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 4:16 PM
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Query on AMI BIRD
huang:
1. A global optimization probably does not exist. It is even difficult
to tell with certainty whether it is better to have equalization at both
ends, Tx and Rx. For example in some cases you may find that it is
better to have all the equalization done at the Rx end (adaptive dfe ,
for example), turning on the optimization at the Tx end may even lead to
poorer solution.
It is best to do a solution space analysis. The present ATM standard
should enable you do such solution space evaluation
2. DCD can be applied by the EDA vendor at the TX end and will be
reflected in the wave form passed through the GetWave function at the
RX.
3. Another item for you to notice is the standard per se does nor
require you to generate the wave form by the impulse response. in other
words the GetWave function is not concerned about where the input wave
form comes from. For example if you have a circuit level Tx model , in
principle, it is possible to generate the wave form in circuit space and
pass the waveform to the RX GetWave. In fact a good(probably at some
point a must) sanity test is to verify the algorithm model generated
waveform against circuit simulation generated waveform.
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Huang chunxing
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:46 PM
To: Mike Steinberger
Cc: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Query on AMI BIRD
Mike,
Thanks for your detailed answer. You really help me know some clues to
solve the problems, but I still have some unclear points listed below.
1) What's peaking filter? It is continous time filter composed of zeros
and poles?
I think the optimal coefficients calculation for non-adaptive
equalization is tough task. In my opinion, the impulse response is most
suitable for determining equalization tap and coefficients range. When
we only consider the transmitter equalization, it may use impulse
reponse to calculate optimal coefficients. In order to dsitinguish
receiver equalization, I would like to call transmitter equalization
emphasis. But when receiver have equalization either, like DFE or CTE, I
am not sure the coefficient determined by impulse response will be best.
Because the optimal coefficient is only calculated by emphasis itself
and doesn't consider the equalization case, like type, coefficients tap
and range. I think it will be different from that optimal coefficient
calcuated by the method considering emphasis and equalization together.
Like two cases below, I think optimal coefficients of case a is
different from that of case b.
a)emphasis---link---receiver without equalization
b)emphasis--link---receiver with equalization
My knowledge of equalization is very limited , maybe I omitted some
optimal coefficients method which could solve my case, or my talk is
just nonsense. : )
2) I know DCD caused by transmitter is different from that caused by
receiver and DCD caused by receiver is most contributed by refernece
voltage shift. Here I mainly care about DCD caused by transmitter. Only
the DCD caused by transmitter do transfer through channel and will be
amplified. Whether the method DCD imposed on the data signal or method
which DCD imposed internal to the transmitter model you suggested, I
think it should be implemented in non-LTI mode in order to modulate the
DCD jitter on data signal. In other words, DCD should be implemented in
GetWave() function and simulator will do the bit_by_bit simulation. Did
I get the right point?
Thanks again. Have a nice day!
Regards,
Huang
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
Tel: 86 755 28976229
FAX: 86 755 28976758
Email: huangchunxing@xxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.huawei.com
Warning: The information contained in electronic mail message is
intended
only for the personal and confidential use of the designated
recipient(s) named
above. It may be privileged and confidential. If you have received
this communication
in error, please destroy any and all copies of this message including
attached
files in your possession.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Steinberger" <msteinb@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <huangchunxing@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "IBIS-ATM" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ibis-macro] Query on AMI BIRD
Huang-
Thank you for your questions. We very much appreciate your interest in
this standard.
I have inserted some responses below. Please let me know if I have
failed to address your concerns.
Mike Steinberger
SiSoft
Huang chunxing wrote:
Hi Experts,
I have some difficult in understanding the AMI BIRD.
1) Most equalization of RX and TX is non-adaptive. Chip vendors
don't have any adaptation codes to embed into DLL function and the DLL
function won't have the ability to calculate the optimal equalization
coefficients. Then who will be in charge of calculating the optimal
equalization coefficients, users or simulators? Is it possible for
simulator to do this kind of work?
You are partially correct in that some of the equalization in the
current designs is not adaptive; however, you're not entirely correct
in
that some of the equalization in the current designs is adaptive. In
general, transmit equalization is not adaptive while receive
equalization (either decision feedback equalization (DFE) or peaking
filter) usually is. Thus, a receiver model truly is responsible for
optimizing the receive equalization, and is in fact the only entity in
the simulation which can perform this function, since the receive
optimization algorithms tend to be highly proprietary.
For (non-adaptive) transmit equalization, the situation is more
complex.
In most real systems, the transmit equalization settings must be
determined by experiment during system integration; and it is quite
true
that the transmitters themselves are not able to perform this
optimization on their own. In simulation, however, there are
algorithms
which can determine the optimum transmitter equalization settings
given
the impulse response of the channel and the configuration of the
equalizer (e.g., number of taps, tap spacing, available tap weights).
The difference between real world and simulation is that in the real
world, the impulse response of the channel is not available to the
transmitter.
In the simulation, a number of optimization algorithms are possible.
All
of them require the impulse response of the channel and the
configuration of the equalizer(s); however, the optimization criterion
can vary quite a bit, and so the algorithm to optimize to the chosen
criterion can vary as well. Thus, while the optimization algorithm for
the transmitter truly is a separate function, it is a function which
offers vendors another opportunity to differentiate their offering.
Since the DLL is some packaging that will already be in place, it is
also a convenient place to put this other function. Please note that
this does not necessarily prevent the EDA platform from also
implementing some form of optimization, although to do so, the EDA
platform must somehow get a description of the equalizer
configuration.
2)If the channel is LTS, all simulation will be done by impulse
response mode. How to consider the jitter effects, especially DCD.
According to PNA(Phase Noise Amplifier) and experiment, DCD will be
amplified by the low-pass channel. Direct statistical processing without
DCD amplification won't be accurate.
After discussing this point at some length, we concluded that the LTI
assumption is not sufficient for all modeling needs. Thus, while the
Init() function and its associated processing depends on the LTI
assumption, the GetWave() function implements a time domain simulation
which only assumes that the passive electrical interconnect is LTI.
Thus, the GetWave function is free to model nonlinear and time varying
behaviors of the pin electronics.
As regards DCD in particular, there are two entirely satisfactory ways
to model the effects of this impairment using models which are
compliant
with this standard:
1. The DCD can be imposed on the data signal that is input into the
transmitter model. In order to do this, the data signal must have
finite
rise and fall times, preferably greater than the DCD to be imposed;
however, that is entirely consistent with the real world that is being
modeled. Every data generator has a finite rise and fall time.
2. The DCD can be imposed internal to the transmitter model. This is
probably more appropriate and more accurate since in the real world
the
DCD will be caused by circuit effects internal to the transmitter.
Similarly, a real receiver can introduce DCD as well, and that DCD
will
have a different effect than DCD at the transmitter. It may therefore
be
appropriate for receiver models to implement DCD as well.
The problem may do not belong to AMI category and maybe I missed
something here. I hope some experts could help clarify it. Thanks in
advance.
Regards,
Huang
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
Tel: 86 755 28976229
FAX: 86 755 28976758
Email: huangchunxing@xxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.huawei.com
Warning: The information contained in electronic mail message is
intended
only for the personal and confidential use of the designated
recipient(s) named
above. It may be privileged and confidential. If you have
received this communication
in error, please destroy any and all copies of this message
including attached
files in your possession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unsubscribe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unsubscribe
Other related posts:
