Hi Mike -
I think we are in agreement on this (were you replying to me?)
I would only expand your last statement to capture that the Tx model and Rx
model may make different assumptions from both the EDA tool and each other.
As far as I can tell, there is no way in AMI_Init to bring all three into
alignment (except perhaps by the user via the models' Model_Specific
parameters).
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Mike Steinberger <msteinb@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Please consider that when analyzing the performance of a channel with AMI
model, the EDA tool has to make assumptions about the structure of the
signal. So, for example, the calculations for PAM4 are different from the
calculations for NRZ. For example, the EDA tool may assume that the
decision threshold for NRZ is 0V. It should be possible, however, to shift
the DC point for all signals so that the decision threshold remains at 0V.
The key point is to make sure you know what assumptions both the model and
the EDA tool are based on.
FWIW,
Mike Steinberger
On 01/25/2016 02:43 PM, Bob Miller (Redacted sender bob.miller for DMARC)
wrote:
I think there is an annoying issue in single-ended IBIS-AMI simulations in
that the impulse fed into the algorithmic model in AMI_Init has no DC
information (it is functionally the derivative of the step response, which
does have DC information.) In a purely differential receiver we implicitly
assume that both the Tx differential reference and the Rx differential trip
point is 0V and interpret the impulse in such a way that a step response or
data stream generated from this impulse is symmetrical about 0.
However, in a "single-ended" system, the Tx and Rx references are not 0V
(and may be different from each other) so the Rx cannot merely process the
impulse through the Rx front end; it probably needs to perform the
equivalent of integrating the impulse into a step/pulse/data waveform
(which if you recall calculus101 requires the restoration of the DC
"constant"). This DC constant probably has to come from the Tx.
In AMI_Getwave, the Tx can supply the "single-ended" output waveform with
the DC component preserved; as long as the EDA platform properly preserves
this through the channel convolution all is well (I hope!).
As in the IBIS Open Forum, I may be blathering nonsense; feel free to
advise me of it (again), Walter...
Regards,
Bob
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Walter Katz <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John,
I verified that the IBIS 6.0 parser generate no warnings or errors when
an [Algorithmic Section] (interface to IBIS AMI model) is added to a
singled ended Input, Output or I/O buffer.
On page 171 IBIS 6.1 says:
“The [Algorithmic Model] always processes a single waveform regardless
whether the model is single-ended or differential. When the model is
differential, the waveform passed to the [Algorithmic Model] must be a
difference waveform.”
The bottom line is that this is nothing in the IBIS specification that
limits AMI modeling to Inputs, Outputs, I/O, single ended or differential.
There is also no constraint in IBIS that the Impulse Response must start
at zero, and end at zero. A number of tools will generate an impulse
response by differentiating a step response. This will lose any DC offset
in the data, but this is a limitation of the implementation of AMI on that
tool.
IBIS does say that AMI modeling is used for SerDes designs, but does not
limit it as such. It certainly would not hurt to add some language that AMI
modeling can be used for other than SerDes.
Walter
Walter Katz
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone 303.449-2308
Mobile 303.335-6156
