[ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 158.2
- From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: 'IBIS-ATM' <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 19:25:42 +0000
Walter,
Regarding the notation of the voltage sources in the
Tx drawing, I tend to agree with Bob. I does NOT
reveal what you are stating:
"The differential waveform is Tx_V-0 = Tx_V when high and 0-Tx_V when low. So
the differential waveform is centered around 0."
Now that I know your answer, I can force myself to "see"
what you are saying in your notation "Tx_V,0" and "0,Tx_V"
if I think of the HSPICE syntax for their "PULSE source",
where the argument list of that particular source type
contains a starting voltage, a comma, and the pulse voltage
among many other arguments.
Unfortunately it is not obvious that this drawing uses a
portion of the HSPICE PULSE source syntax, and an uninitiated
reader can get confused just like Bob and I got confused
reading this drawing.
The other problem is that the text below the drawing contradicts
even this interpretation of the drawing. For one, the use of
"Vdc" is inappropriate because this is not a DC source. But
more importantly, the text explicitly says that the pulse
is between zero and Tx_V volt for both sources. This doesn't
seem to support the idea that there is a differential stimulus
with levels of +/- Tx_V, centered around 0 volts.
This needs to be cleaned up...
While I am at it, how do you propose to implement a zero rise/fall
time in a time domain simulation? I think the BIRD should say
something about that too...
Thanks,
Arpad
===================================================================
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Walter Katz
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:36 PM
To: 'Bob Ross'
Cc: 'IBIS-ATM'
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 158.2
Bob,
Comments in-line, I sent (and attached this time BIRD 158.2) to the reflector
Walter
From: Bob Ross [mailto:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:56 PM
To: wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'IBIS-ATM'
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] BIRD 158.2
Walter:
I did not see the draft BIRD158.2 attachment, but attached
are some editorial corrections to the content of BIRD158.1.
We can go over them at the ATM meeting.
The port 1 waveform is documented as
__
__| V = Tx_V,0, but should be V = 0, Tx_V
Similarly for
___
|__ should be V = Tx_V, 0
The words in the text are independent of the diagram.
(I cannot edit the diagram.)
My questions/comments are
1. I am not happy that we have to introduce a common mode
offset in contradiction to page 164, Step 4 of the Specification
which states that the input voltages are from -0.5 to 0.5.
WMK> You are comparing apples and oranges. The differential waveform is Tx_V-0
= Tx_V when high and 0-Tx_V when low. So the differential waveform is centered
around 0.
I think it would be better to introduce Tx_Vp and Tx_Vn
where Tx_Vp defaults to 0.5V and Tx_Vn defaults to -0.5,
and the differential input is from V= Tx_Vn, Tx_Vp on port 1
and V = Tx_Vp, Tx_Vn on port 2. Then the parameters can
be passed in directly into the Converter Parameters of
BIRD160 to specify a differential stimulus that spans
-0.5 to 0.5. The common mode offset is disturbing and
assumes no common-mode to differential conversions.
Alternatively, we could enter in Tx_Vp and Tx_Vn to
match the actual voltage swing limits in the physical
Tx buffer.
Also the Definition of V_Tx is strange: "defines the
rail voltage of the I/O power supply in volts". Are we
really defining a power supply voltage or a voltage
swing limit?
Corners are already in sync, but I would rather put the
burden of syncing up Tx_Vp and Tx_Vn values on the EDA tool
than to create a technically unnecessary offset due to
weaknesses in other parts of the specification.
WMK> This is more realistic. In a normal differential driver both the positive
and negative side swing typically between 0V and PuRef. Thus one can think of
Tx_V as PuRef. When the input to the Tx is an equalized waveform (e.g. output
of Tx GetWave), then in affect the algorithmic model is modulating PuRef. I
think we have heard these exact words from David.
2. Should the Tstonefile name be changed to Tstonefile_s4p
since this if a pre-defined file for S-parameter 4-ports only?
Other predefined Tstonefile configurations are possible now
and in the future (for S, Y, Z parameters or for a
different number of ports). To "Tstonefile" seems
too generic when it applies to a specific configuration.
WMK> I used Tstonefile because this is the name that IBIS-ISS uses, I see no
need to change this.
3. Will the BIRD158 Reserved Parameters work without
BIRD160?
WMK> Yes
Bob
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter Katz
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:45 PM
To: Michael Mirmak
Cc: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] BIRD 158.2
MM,
I am formally submitting BIRD 158.2 to the Open Forum and requesting that a
vote be taken at the next Open Form to approve this BIR for inclusion in the
next release of IBIS.
I have made the change to specifically state that the Touchstone specified by
the reserved AMI parameter Tstonefile does not include the IBIS package model,
and described one method of generating an Impulse Response of the channel
suitable for use as input to the Tx AMI_Init function. I have not made the
change to the graphic that Bob requested because I do not know how, because I
think it is unimportant since the words in the text describe exactly what to
do, and because it can be done as part of the editorial review. I will
re-submit this BIRD if required due to any editorial changes made during the
Tuesday IBIS-ATM meeting.
Walter
Walter Katz
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Phone 303.449-2308
Mobile 303.335-6156
Other related posts:
