[ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 158.3 - 2
- From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:28:01 +0000
Radek,
I am not quite sure what exactly our interoperability statement
is, but I doubt that it guarantees absurd things like an ECL Tx
(working in the negative voltages) being interoperable with a
CMOS Rx (working in the positive voltages), and the like...
Thanks,
Arpad
=================================================================
From: radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 12:21 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 158.3 - 2
Arpad,
While there is some rationale in what you are saying, this is not what we state
about interoperability.
Radek
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 10:15 AM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 158.3 - 2
Radek,
You are correct, we cannot guarantee that a Tx model
will know what the linear operating region of the Rx
is, but most channels are following some sort of a
standard which usually specify the signal levels one
way or another. I would think that a Tx vendor's
product will be compatible with any other Rx vendor's
product for a given communication protocol, which also
implies that the common mode component of the signal
coming from the Tx will be in the range where the Rx
products are designed to function.
Regarding the initial condition topic, please explain
how I misunderstood Fangyi's statement.
Thanks,
Arpad
=======================================================
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 11:59 AM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 158.3 - 2
Hi Arpad,
(I am replying to an earlier message in this thread.)
Regarding the common mode issue, how can you guarantee that Tx_Vol and Tx_Voh
specified on TX AMI model are - in your words - " the appropriate common mode
component" for any user selected RX model. Is it possible that for given and
fixed Tx_Vol and Tx_Voh the independently user-selected RX will be driven into
a strongly nonlinear operation?
In other words, by specifying those parameters, aren't we imposing conditions
that could otherwise be left to the user for a proper setting?
Second, regarding the initial conditions, there are several ways to address
this issue but what you say is consistent with what I was trying to convey
yesterday and you probably misinterpreted what Fangyi was saying. However, I
would avoid new terms like "AMI Impulse response" as it does not seem necessary
to introduce them.
Radek
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 9:39 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 158.3 - 2
Correction about the initial condition text below:
I should have used Tx_Voh and Tx_Vol for the source
voltages, not Tx_V and 0, but the concept of what I
was trying to say remains the same...
Sorry for the confusion,
Arpad
=====================================================
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:27 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 158.3 - 2
Radek,
I agree that "AMI technology does not handle the common mode" but
during the channel characterization simulation the models must
include the appropriate common mode component if the differential
response depends on what the common mode component is.
As an analogy, consider the SPICE small signal .AC simulation.
The DC component is irrelevant for the frequency sweep, yet the
simulator will start with a DC operating point calculation because
the circuit's behavior might vary quite a bit for different bias
conditions.
We can have the same situation in IBIS-AMI with certain types
of non-linear Rx models which can still be considered linear
devices for AMI purposes if the signaling range falls into
their linear region. In situations like this, the channel
characterization simulation will only give the correct results
if the differential signal contains the correct DC "bias" or
common mode component.
Now that you mentioned the initial conditions, after thinking
about Fangyi's statement in the ATM meeting today that in LTI
systems the initial conditions do not make a difference, I tend
to disagree.
Let's consider a simple RC filter with (a) zero initial charge
on the capacitor and (b) 1 V initial voltage across the capacitor.
By applying a 1 V step, you will get exponential rise in case (a)
but a flat 1 volt output in case (b).
Also, in the circuit proposed in the BIRD, the voltage sources are
essentially non-zero for time<0. We should state in the BIRD that:
It is assumed that before transition, the circuit remains
sufficiently long under inputs SRC1 = 0 and SRC2 = Tx_V, so
that the steady state is achieved. After time=0, SRC1 changes
to Tx_V and SRC2 to 0. We measure the voltage difference between
ports 2 and 4, subtract the initial value (in steady state this
difference is not zero), and divide the result by 2. This gives
us the 'edge response' which starts from zero. Then, find its
time difference and get "AMI Impulse response".
It is important to understand that the difference voltage was
non-zero before transition and at time=0 started to change to
another steady state. The derivative should be taken by
considering that non-zero voltage prior to zero. Otherwise,
when finding the derivative (for impulse response), we'll get
incorrect results.
Thanks,
Arpad
=================================================================
From: radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 7:24 PM
To: Dmitriev-Zdorov, Vladimir; bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>; Muranyi, Arpad;
ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 158.3 - 2
Hi Walter,
I am still not convinced that specifying Vol and Voh for a specific TX AMI is
of any particular value in the context of an arbitrary RX to interact with. AMI
technology does not handle the common mode and we should not make an impression
it does. If, in the future, handling of the common mode becomes necessary,
there will be ways to enhance this methodology, and it should be done in a
complete way.
Second, the BIRD still needs to clarify the following three items: (a) that the
"step response" of interest (to determine the impulse response) represents the
response to a unit step function at the input, (b) the sources in the diagram
do not represent that input, and (c) following Vladimir's comments, handling of
non-zero initial conditions (if taking place) - it needs to be stated how their
impact is removed.
Radek
From: Dmitriev-Zdorov, Vladimir [mailto:vladimir_dmitriev-zdorov@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:39 PM
To: BIERNACKI,RADEK (A-Sonoma,ex1);
bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>; Muranyi, Arpad;
ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 158.3 - 2
Radek,
I agree with your comments on redundancy of the input characterization: one
parameter is enough since the common mode input is constant (with defined
stimulus) hence no conversion of time varying common mode into differential is
possible.
Regarding step response, the definition in fact should be even more stringent.
The step response is a response of a circuit to a certain unit size step-wise
excitation, assuming no independent sources (i.e. non-autonomous circuit only)
and also zero initial conditions! If we measure the response as a transition
from prolonged '0' (lasted for many bits, to allow initial steady state) to '1'
state, it is not a response with zero initial conditions, and for a linear
circuit it gives us doubled step response. Then, EDA platform has to account
for this fact by applying a factor 0.5. Another problem with 'step response' is
that it is defined for one excitation only.
Vladimir
________________________________
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of
radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
[radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:30 PM
To: bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>; Muranyi, Arpad;
ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 158.3 - 2
Hi All,
In my opinion the latest changes made the proposal somewhat more confusing. The
common-mode input is introduced quite unnecessarily. All that is needed is the
difference of Tx_Vol and Tx_Voh and the proposal asks for two numbers where
just one number is needed. The one number needed could be either half of the
differential voltage swing or the full differential voltage swing. (That would
correspond to either Tx_Vol = -Tx_V and Tx_Voh = Tx_V, or Tx_Vol = -Tx_V/2 and
Tx_Voh = Tx_V/2, and specifying just Tx_V as before.)
Furthermore, the use of inherent common-mode concept associated with specifying
two (could be arbitrary) numbers will be more confusing to the users of the AMI
technology, and model developers in particular.
Arpad: your comment about the unit excitation was quite incorrect. By
definition, the step response of a circuit is the output signal (here the
output differential voltage) when a unit step signal (the input differential
voltage) is applied to the input. The circuit inside must not have independent
sources in it. The framework in which this BIRD is written does not follow this
convention, and suggests independent sources being part of the circuit. In fact
these sources should properly be described as voltage-controlled voltage
sources that are controlled by an input signal that is not shown. A unit
excitation (Dirac delta, or unit step function) must be applied to that input
to determine the impulse response needed for AMI simulation. In the context of
the picture in the BIRD that unit excitation will result in the voltages of the
sources as described. Those voltages are poorly termed in the BIRD as "step
response stimulus". In fact the picture does not reflect an input-output model
of the actual circuit, but shows a schematic for impulse response calculation -
that should be explicitly stated.
Radek
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Ross
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 8:44 AM
To: wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>;
Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'IBIS-ATM'
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 158.3 - 2
All:
Looks good enough to me for submission.
Bob
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter Katz
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 7:43 AM
To: Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'IBIS-ATM'
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 158.3 - 2
All,
I have made the changes requested by Bob and Arpad (enclosed). Any additional
comments before I send the formal version to Michael this afternoon would be
appreciated.
Walter
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 10:03 AM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 158.3
Walter,
Here are my comments on this BIRD draft.
What does "differential transmission" mean in this sentence:
"This Impulse Response characterizes the differential transmission of the Tx
analog buffer model,"?
Could you make this clearer with better wording?
In the following sentence you are talking about the "die side
of the package":
"For a Tx buffer, the Transmitter Circuit defines the analog buffer model
between the zero impedance stimulus input voltage source and the die side of
the package model. For an Rx buffer, the Receiver Circuit defines the analog
buffer model between the die side of the package model and a high impedance
probe at the input to the Rx Algorithmic model."
However, it is not clear whether this means that the buffer model
described by the data in the Touchstone file can/should also
include the on-die interconnect or not. I think this should
be clearly stated otherwise different people will make different
assumptions to model on-die interconnects.
This sentence:
"Note that this Touchstone analog model only represent the on-die model between
the die pad and buffer interface to the algorithmic model"
is somewhat misleading, because it can be interpreted as if the
Touchstone model is **the** on-die interconnect model between the
pad and the buffer's terminals ("buffer interface").
You use the words "unit excitation". This sentence:
"This BIRD defines what that unit excitation is when the Tsonefile parameter is
present."
really doesn't make sense, because by definition a unit = 1,
i.e. the "unit excitation" would have to have a fixed and
predefined magnitude of 1 volt, yet in this BIRD you define
Tx_Voh and Tx_Vol, which is not "unit" anymore. Also, please
correct the spelling of "Tsonefile" in this sentence (missing
"t").
You mention in the discussion of the Impulse Response generation
that the Tstonefile parameter is a Reserved Parameter, but you
don't say anywhere in the document whether the rest of the parameters
in this BIRD are Reserved or Model_Specific. Please specify what
you want them to be.
I would also like to request to put a "0" before and after each
decimal point for properness. For example, instead of "(Range 1. .5 1.)"
please write "(Range 1.0 0.5 1.0)", it is much more readable that way...
Thanks,
Arpad
======================================================================
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter Katz
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 9:04 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] BIRD 158.3
All,
Please review version 158.3 (Tstonefile AMI models) before I send the final
version to Michael tomorrow afternoon.
The major change is that there are now two Tx voltage levels (Tx_Vol and
Tx_Voh) that determine the differential step response stimulus that is assumed
for generating the Impulse Response of the channel. This make BIRD158
Tstonefile models directly convertible to BIRD 160 external models, and gives
the model maker the ability to determine the common mode voltage when
generating the Impulse Response of a channel.
Walter
Walter Katz
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Phone 303.449-2308
Mobile 303.335-6156
Other related posts:
