James, I don't understand why you want to "apply the output of Tx AMI waveform to the input of the analog channel". There is a separate simulation in which we generate the impulse response of the channel hAC(t) and it is this impulse response that is convolved with the output of Tx GetWave. What do you want to do with the analog model in the AMI simulation? The analog model is not used or needed in the AMI flow or its convolutions. A1: Yes A2: No the IBIS specification doesn't and shouldn't describe how to obtain the impulse response hAC(t). There are a lot of different ways to do that some of which may even be proprietary. This is similar to field solvers, for example. There are many different ways to convert a physical description of a PCB trace to an electrical model, but we don't put all that into a SPICE User's Manual. We only talk about how to format that data so that the SPICE engine can read it and use it. Pg. 11 (and subsequent drawings) in that presentation illustrate real-life systems, not the way AMI simulations are constructed. If you want to get an idea for how AMI simulations flow, I would suggest to look at pg. 9 of this presentation: http://www.eda.org/ibis/summits/jul09/katz1.pdf where the top panel with the green background illustrates the statistical flow using the AMI_Init functions only, and the lower half with the light blue background illustrates the Time Domain flow using the AMI_GetWave functions. BEWARE: this drawing illustrates the flow in IBIS v5.0 which will change in v5.1 so that the Tx GetWave's input is the "Stimulus" only and the impulse response of the channel is convolved with the output of Tx GetWave. Either way, there is no analog model on this slide. The impulse response is generated in a separate step before you start doing what is shown on this slide. The flows described in BIRD 120.1 attempt to verbalize this slide in a step-by-step fashion. Read the BIRD while looking at this slide (keeping in mind the change in the order the impulse response is convolved). By the way, regarding "it is the same "digital stimulus" as referred by your email", they are not the same. For the Tx GetWave input, step 4 in BIRD 120 states that the levels are +/- 0.5 volt, while the stimulus to the analog model is a logic '1' or logic '0'. Regarding: "then, what is driving it in IBIS AMI simulations?". Nothing, you don't use the analog models in AMI simulations. You use them before you start your AMI simulations in the preparatory channel characterization simulation. Hope this helps... Arpad ============================================================================ From: James Zhou [mailto:james.zhou@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:13 PM To: Muranyi, Arpad; 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Question on dividing up the Tx behavior between the AMI and analog portions of the model Hi Arpad, Please see my comments in red color. In case any email client cannot display in color, all replies are marked by <JZ_reply> </JZ_reply>. Thanks, James Zhou From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]> On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:02 PM To: 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Question on dividing up the Tx behavior between the AMI and analog portions of the model James, Regarding: "please clarify what is actually driving the input terminals of Tx analog block (which is the first stage of the entire analog channel, represented by hAC(t))", there are several different ways to generate hAC(t), but one way to do it is to run a time domain simulation using a step function and take the derivative of the resulting waveform at the Rx. In order to do this, the EDA tool would give a stimulus to the Tx analog model corresponding to a rising or falling step function, such as a digital '0' and '1' or '1' and '0' to get a rising or falling step waveform. How this is implemented is entirely up to the EDA vendor, that's why the IBIS specification doesn't give you these details. But the point is that this stimulus has nothing to do with x(t) which is what goes into AMI_GetWave during an AMI simulation. <JZ_reply>: I agree with above statements. However my original statement is not about how to generate hAC(t). By "driving the input terminals of Tx analog block", I mean to apply the output of Tx AMI waveform to the input of the analog channel (i.e. hAC(t)). Mathematically, the EDA tool convolves the Tx AMI output waveform with hAC(t). I fully agree with you that the IBIS Specification does not need to give mathematical details on how to obtain hAC(t) from existing data (provided that necessary data do exist per Specification). This issue can be viewed from another perspective in the form of these questions: Q1: is it permissible in IBIS Specification to obtain hAC(t) using Tx Analog circuit represented by [Ramp] or [Rising/Falling Waveform]? Q2: if answer to Q1 is yes, does or should the IBIS Specification provide sufficient information such that different EDA tools would obtain the same hAC(t) using the same data in [Ramp] or [Rising/Falling Waveform] ? </JZ_reply> Regarding: "(a) Instead of "driving the channel topology by the Tx I-V, [Ramp], or V-t based analog model", the "digital stimulus" actually drives the Tx AMI input. The Tx AMI output should drive these analog models, if such practices are allowed by the Specification. It neither makes sense to me (to drive a legacy IBIS model with x(t) or Tx AMI output) nor specified by IBIS 5.0 or BIRDs that this is permissible and doable." Which digital stimulus are you talking about in "the "digital stimulus" actually drives the Tx AMI input"? <JZ_reply> it is the same "digital stimulus" as referred by your email. Mathematically it is x(t) = b(t) *p (t) </JZ_reply> There are two digital stimuli. One that is used to stimulate the analog Tx model to generate the impulse response (hAC(t)) for the channel, and another one that is the input to the Tx AMI_GetWave function during the AMI simulation. <JZ_reply> my email refers to the latter </JZ_reply> Why do you say "The Tx AMI output should drive these analog models"? I don't see that in the AMI flow diagram. <JZ_reply> it is clearly shown on page 11 of "Serial Link Analysis Terminology" (URL given in your email). Tx AMI output is marked by an arrow with text "Equalized Tx Data". This is also evident in BIRD120, section 3.2 Step 5 and 6a. The texts in Step 5 and 6a. literally says: "The output of the Tx AMI_GetWave function is passed on to Step 6." and, " ... is convoled with the output of Step 1" (i.e. hAC(t)). </JZ_reply> Even though you might want to do that in your approach, this is not what the IBIS AMI flow suggests. <JZ_reply> My intention is to correctly interpret the IBIS Specification. </ JZ_reply> Regarding: "since the "digital stimulus" x(t) is in fact amplitude continuous, if it is used to drive the D_to_A in Tx", this statement is not correct. x(t) is not used to drive the D_to_A (or the input) of the Tx analog model. It is used as the input to the Tx GetWave function. <JZ_reply> we have agreement on this. This is the perfect place to ask this question again: since we have agreed that "x(t) is not used to drive the D_to_A (or the input) of the Tx analog model", then, what is driving it in IBIS AMI simulations? </JZ_reply> I hope this helps. <JZ_reply> yes, very much. Thank you again for respond with technical details. </JZ_reply> Arpad ======================================================================= From: James Zhou [mailto:james.zhou@xxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:james.zhou@xxxxxxxxxx]> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:15 PM To: Muranyi, Arpad; 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Question on dividing up the Tx behavior between the AMI and analog portions of the model Hi Arpad, I agree with the first part of your response, which basically states that x(t) = b(t) * p(t) and, x(t) drives Tx AMI block. In case of using AMI_GetWave, x(t) is passed to AMI_GetWave through *wave variable. Even though labeled as "digital stimulus", x(t) is amplitude continuous and time discrete. With reference to "The analog model was used in generating the channel's impulse response hAC(t), but it is not driven by the output of Tx GetWave as you concluded", If this is the case, please clarify what is actually driving the input terminals of Tx analog block (which is the first stage of the entire analog channel, represented by hAC(t)). With reference to "As far as I know the analog models are exercised the same way as in a usual legacy IBIS simulation using the tool's digital stimulus (though the D_to_A converters in Tx), driving the channel topology by the Tx I-V, [Ramp] or V-t based analog model, to obtain an impulse response as seen at the Rx", there are several issues here: (a) Instead of "driving the channel topology by the Tx I-V, [Ramp], or V-t based analog model", the "digital stimulus" actually drives the Tx AMI input. The Tx AMI output should drive these analog models, if such practices are allowed by the Specification. It neither makes sense to me (to drive a legacy IBIS model with x(t) or Tx AMI output) nor specified by IBIS 5.0 or BIRDs that this is permissible and doable. (b) since the "digital stimulus" x(t) is in fact amplitude continuous, if it is used to drive the D_to_A in Tx, all amplitude information would be lost, except the rise/fall transitions. Thanks, James Zhou From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]> On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 9:36 PM To: 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Question on dividing up the Tx behavior between the AMI and analog portions of the model James, Knowing that Walter is enjoying the IEEE meetings in Hawaii, I will try to help a little. Please refer to the flow diagram that was used in the discussions towards the new flow. See pg. 17 in this presentation: http://www.vhdl.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/archive/20100713/toddwesterhoff/IBIS-AMI%20Flows/Flows_July2010-v2.pdf Note that the input to the Tx GetWave function is labeled "Digital stimulus" and x(t). Also note that x(t) is explained in more detail in this presentation on pg. 13-14: http://www.vhdl.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/archive/20061212/toddwesterhoff/Serial%20Link%20Terminology/serial_link_terminology.pdf where "TX data" is b(t) convolved with p(t) which we later simply referred to as x(t) in our flow diagrams. Please note also that on pg. 17 of the first presentation above, the output of Tx GetWave is convolved with the channel impulse response hAC(t) and the result of that is the input to Rx GetWave. There is no analog model present in this flow. The analog model was used in generating the channel's impulse response hAC(t), but it is not driven by the output of Tx GetWave as you concluded. So your conclusions that: " Equivalently, the legacy IBIS [Ramp] and [Rising/Falling Waveform] keywords have no roles in this process." and "D_to_A is not needed in IBIS AMI, or at least in between Tx AMI block and its analog block. Because the output of Tx AMi is already analog, why bother using a D_to_A? " seem to be incorrect to me. As far as I know the analog models are exercised the same way as in a usual legacy IBIS simulation using the tool's digital stimulus (though the D_to_A converters in Tx), driving the channel topology by the Tx I-V, [Ramp] or V-t based analog model, to obtain an impulse response as seen at the Rx. Of course there are other techniques to achieve equivalent results, but it is not the role of the IBIS specification to enumerate all possible methods in the trade. I hope this helps... Arpad ========================================================================= From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]> On Behalf Of James Zhou Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 9:02 PM To: Walter Katz; Terry.Chen@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Terry.Chen@xxxxxxxxxx>; DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Question on dividing up the Tx behavior between the AMI and analog portions of the model Hi Walter, Thanks for your response and clarification. The issues can be separated as the following: (1) "determine the Impulse Response of a channel": I fully agree with you that "Tx analog portion takes the output of the algorithmic section of an AMI model". Equivalently, the legacy IBIS [Ramp] and [Rising/Falling Waveform] keywords have no roles in this process. This is a subject that has caused much confusion in the end-user community and we need to clarify it in terms of both (a) what are the intentions of model makers when IBIS AMI analog model data is put in [Ramp] [Raising/Falling Waveform] keywords and (b) What should the EDA tools do about those data in IBIS AMI modeling (i.e. when deriving impulse response) (2) "the fundamental confusion of using [External Model] with IBIS-ISS subckts": in my opinion, D_to_A is not needed in IBIS AMI, or at least in between Tx AMI block and its analog block. Because the output of Tx AMi is already analog, why bother using a D_to_A? ( I understand D_to_A is useful for general IBIS [External Model] not involving AMI). (3) "one must be very careful to make sure that return loss is properly accounted for": I fully agree. IBIS Specification should provide clear guidelines on how to achieve this both at model creation time and model simulation time. I think enforcing reverse isolation is too restrictive for existing silicon implementation and it will cause larger errors when return loss is lower. It is much simpler and better to require the disclosure (knowledge) of Tx AMI block output impedance (which is assumed to be high impedance by many, anyway) and, not imposing any artificial requirements on the AMI analog block (such as reverse isolation which in fact does not exist in many silicon). Thanks, James Zhou From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx]> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 4:50 PM To: James Zhou; Terry.Chen@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Terry.Chen@xxxxxxxxxx>; DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Question on dividing up the Tx behavior between the AMI and analog portions of the model James, The IBIS analog model is only useful to determine the Impulse Response of a channel. You are absolutely correct that in reality a SerDes Tx analog portion takes the output of the algorithmic section of an AMI model to drive an analog model (e.g. an on-die S-parameter s4p, a simpler RC circuit at described in BIRD 122, or an ISS subckt as defined in BIRD 116). IBIS AMI assumes an LTI channel, and IBIS-ISS defines all of the LTI elements available in HSPICE. This is the fundamental confusion of using [External Model] with IBIS-ISS subckts describing the analog section. As written now, BIRD 116 identifies the input of the Tx ISS subckt using the D_to_A statement, which essentially defines a voltage swing and rise time - equivalent to Ramp. The correct interpretation is that the D_to_A statement is only to define the input to the Tx analog circuit, and is valid to determine the Impulse Response of the channel. Because of silicon drivers are in fact LTI, one can do the shaping of the waveform in the algorithmic section, but one must be very careful to make sure that return loss is properly accounted for. Walter From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]> On Behalf Of James Zhou Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 5:11 PM To: Terry.Chen@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Terry.Chen@xxxxxxxxxx>; DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Question on dividing up the Tx behavior between the AMI and analog portions of the model Hi David and Terry, Both of your emails mentioned "analog IBIS model" and "IBIS-analog portion" represented by [Ramp] and/or [Rising/Falling Waveform] keywords in IBIS file. However, these "analog" IBIS models only take digital input signals, as stated in IBIS Specification 5.0, page 71-72 and section 6b. The output of the "analog" IBIS model is not capable of tracking the amplitude changes in the input (other than a rise/fall transition). It would not make sense to feed the Tx AMI output to such digital inputs based on IBIS Specification 5.0. If this approach of using [Ramp] and/or [Rising/falling Waveform] keywords to represent "analog IBIS model" is adopted by IBIS AMI flow, some clarification is needed on how to interpret and implement it. Regards, James Zhou QLogic Corp. From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]> On Behalf Of Chen, Terry Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 10:33 AM To: DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Question on dividing up the Tx behavior between the AMI and analog portions of the model Hi David, Actually I am interested in other's response to this question as well... But, for the TX Driver I am currently modeling, I am doing exactly what you have prescribed and using the IBIS-analog portion as effectively an ideal step function (by setting my ramp with extremely high rise/fall dv/dt) and letting the step response filter inside my AMI model to shape my output waveform. Now, I am not sure if this is the "right" or "ideal" way to do it, but I am getting a reasonably good correlation in my Re-driver model with the actual lab measurements (the max jitter mismatch is < 8ps). I hope this is at least an useful data point for you. Regards, Terry From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]> On Behalf Of David Banas Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 1:15 PM To: 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: [ibis-macro] Question on dividing up the Tx behavior between the AMI and analog portions of the model Hi all, Is it customary to split up the Tx behavior, such that the FFE is modeled in the AMI model and the pulse shaper in the analog model? Or, is there a different dividing line that has been identified as "best practice". (Or, am I completely off in the weeds?) The context for this question: I just managed to get good correlation between our latest Tx AMI model and the HSPICE model. And then I realized that, having dumped all of the behavior into the AMI model, I would need to put an ideal step function into the V-T curves of the analog IBIS model. And I wasn't sure that would be a good idea. (I'm guessing that that would reek havoc in most simulators; is that correct?) Thanks, David Banas Sr. Member Technical Staff Altera<http://www.altera.com/> +1-408-544-7667 - desk Did you know Altera offers over 150 free online technical training courses<http://www.altera.com/servlets/searchcourse?coursetype=Online&WT.mc_id=t9_ot_mi_mi_tx_a_311>? Take one today! ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice. This message may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message, or any attachments, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.