Mikhail, I concur with Steve. This should be treated as both an engineering and a liability problem. From an engineering perspective, your design does not meet the specifications. If it fails for this reason, it becomes a liability problem. If I were in your position, my recommendation to management would be to perform a redesign. (And I have been in this position many times.) I would document the facts, state the case for redesign with series resistors in a clear and succinct fashion, and allow your management to make the final decision. If they decide not to follow your recommendation, I would then reply with a memo that states your objection to their decision. The fact that the manufacturer's evaluation board does not meet their own specifications is irrelevant. It may provide you with the necessary leverage to obtain the actual overshoot specification from the device manufacturer, or some monetary allowance to cover your cost of redesign, but it is not a valid excuse if your design experiences failure due to your neglect of following best engineering practices. You are dealing with one engineering problem, overstress, which has two causes. First, your memory driver is too strong and too fast. Second, your receiver inputs at the DSP are not protected against long term overshoot. Both are affected by process and device geometry. You are guaranteed that as your design matures, newer memory devices will become faster. This will increase your risk. There is also a good chance that if your DSP is a high run rate part, it will also be cost-reduced by producing it at a smaller geometry. Switchover to a smaller geometry process may happen without your knowledge. In which case, you may begin seeing failures in the future that you do not see today. Good luck and happy engineering, Scott 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 steve weir wrote: > Mikhail, will you have a warranty or liability problem if these > things fail within a particular period of time? Will your company > suffer loss of market if these things have a short life? If the > answer is yes, then you are pretty much stuck doing the homework to > first get a real answer out of ADI about what their parts can take > compared to what you are banging them with. > > Personally, I would eat the redesign and sleep well at night knowing > that the product wasn't a Challenger disaster waiting to happen. > > You might be able to get out of Dutch in the short term by applying > cost with an Ohmega layer for the resistors. > > Steve. > At 07:34 AM 3/3/2006, Mikhail Matusov wrote: > >> Dear experts, >> >> I designed a card based on the ADI TS201 TigerSHARC EZ-KIT evaluation board >> schematics. The TS201 has 2.5V 3.3V-tolerant I/Os . On this board it is >> directly connected to a 3.3V Micron SDRAM. Unfortunately, we had not >> simulated this interface before going into the layout. When we did we found >> that there is a huge overshoot on SDRAM read reaching almost 5V at the DSP >> pins. Our SI subcontractor recommends adding series terminations at the >> SDRAM pins. At this point it would mean major PCB redesign. I pulled an >> EZ-KIT card and captured the read cycle to verify the simulation results and >> found that the board behaves exactly as in simulation, i.e. the DSP chip is >> constantly subjected to this huge overshoot. However, the board works fine. >> So, I was wondering how I could estimate the risk of leaving the design as >> is? >> >> >> Thanks, >> ======================= >> Mikhail Matusov >> Hardware Design Engineer >> Square Peg Communications >> Tel.: +1 (613) 271-0044 ext.231 >> Fax: +1 (613) 271-3007 >> http://www.squarepeg.ca >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> To unsubscribe from si-list: >> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field >> >> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to: >> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list >> >> For help: >> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field >> >> List FAQ wiki page is located at: >> http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ >> >> List technical documents are available at: >> http://www.si-list.org >> >> List archives are viewable at: >> //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list >> or at our remote archives: >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages >> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: >> http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from si-list: > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field > > or to administer your membership from a web page, go to: > //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list > > For help: > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field > > List FAQ wiki page is located at: > http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ > > List technical documents are available at: > http://www.si-list.org > > List archives are viewable at: > //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list > or at our remote archives: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages > Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: > http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from si-list: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field or to administer your membership from a web page, go to: //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list For help: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field List FAQ wiki page is located at: http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ List technical documents are available at: http://www.si-list.org List archives are viewable at: //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list or at our remote archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu