it seems like we are all victims of some poorly defined legacy i/o timing methodology that were used back in the days when dinosaurs rule the world. maybe its time to rethink the way we should define our i/o timing in the future. -----Original Message----- From: Venkataraman, Srinivas [mailto:srinivas.venkataraman@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 1:01 PM To: 'James Freeman'; Venkataraman, Srinivas; 'Todd Westerhoff' Cc: Coleman, Dave; 'we_r_frendz@xxxxxxxxx'; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Question about Simulation in Spectraquest Importance: High Sure. The adjusted interconnect delay method is a good way to do it if you do not have a good receiver model. For high performance buses with very fast edge rates and smaller cycle times (a few nS), the need to do the whole path will become inevitable. The input to the receiver is always important as that is the only way to understand what the tline and the discontinuties along the path are doing to the signal. -----Original Message----- From: James Freeman [mailto:freeman@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 12:09 PM To: srinivas.venkataraman@xxxxxxxxx Cc: Coleman, Dave; 'we_r_frendz@xxxxxxxxx'; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] Re: Question about Simulation in Spectraquest Hi Srinivas, The signal at the receiver is always of interest for signal quality purposes and in the case of poorly documented receivers, the only way to quantify the delay. Thanks Jim Freeman "Venkataraman, Srinivas" wrote: > The flight time will always remain the same and has nothing to do with a > well or poorly behaved > t-line. Whether the flight time is fast or slow depends > only on the dielectric constant of the substrate. This confusion is caused > because you are trying > to bucket the driver delay, receiver delay and the interconnect delay in > different bins. The best > way would be to model the whole path, driver input->interconnect->receiver > o/p and then quantify the > impact of fast and slow skew corners of the devices. > > Srinivas > > -----Original Message----- > From: Coleman, Dave [mailto:dave.coleman@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 7:44 AM > To: 'we_r_frendz@xxxxxxxxx'; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Question about Simulation in Spectraquest > > Rahul, > > For a well-behaved transmission line circuit, you are correct - the fast > corner conditions will yield the min flight time. If you have a > not-so-well-behaved circuit (i.e., have signal ringback across threshold), > the fast corner conditions may cause the signal to settle later than for the > slow corner conditions, so you CAN get a larger flight time with the fast > corner conditions. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: whiz kid [mailto:we_r_frendz@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 8:14 PM > To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [SI-LIST] Question about Simulation in Spectraquest > > Hi Gurus, > I have a question about the usability of the values > that spectraquest spits when doing a flight time > simulation. When I am doing a simulation with a fast > driver, fast transmission line, and fast reciever I am > more concerned with the Min switch time (Min flight > time). Is the settle time (max flight time) that SQ > displays a use ful parameter here??. Because to find > the max flight time u make use of the slow driver, > slow line, slow reciever. Am I missing some thing in > how to interpret the values. > > Regards, > Rahul. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger > http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from si-list: > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field > For help: > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field > > 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 > For help: > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field > > 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 > For help: > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field > > 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 For help: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field 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 For help: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field 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