Hi All: As you know, I favor option (1). The primary reasons are minimal work, cost, and timeliness vs. the inconvenience of "impure" structures. There are also some larger, practical business issues from many parties within and outside of the committee. I may articulate some of these in the future as specific points. In the past, some impurity was purposely introduced to promote evolution to and the adoption of a higher level IBIS while the EDA vendors still could support an earlier version path, eventually upgraded with necessary features to support their tools bsed on capabilities, business and schedule priorities. So far, I do not see a compelling technical reason for making a drastic change. I do see a few defects, (vdiff in particular) but this can also be handled gracefully within option (1) with minimal disruption and graceful evolution. A compelling reason for a new [Diff Model] keyword to introduce a new, partially unique set of IBIS tables within the existing structure. So far the proposals are just formatting differences, while supporting similar functions via psuedo differential structures (and still maintaining an external model link for true differential in the same manner). Support for all differential specification parameters remains for either psuedo-differential or true differential. I did a quick review of IBIS and started identifing the areas that will be impacted by [Diff Pin] removal. These will be brought on the table in due course by me and others to eliminate newly-introduced inconsistencies. So rather than focusing on the necessary diff parameter improvements (and there are a lot of stuctural issues here), we will be dealing with revisiting many old issues and planning a proposed restructing of IBIS that is far more extensive than you can imagine. So the rephrasing of the question should be: what approach do you prefer and for what additional cost and time relative to option (1) are you willing to spend? Bob Walter Katz wrote:
All,I think there was some consensus among some of use that the best approach to cleaning up differential measurement rules had two independent paths. A third independent path is to generally clean up the existing single ended and differential rules.The ?first? path is to implement additional differential rules as additional rules in the single ended active high pin of differential pairs (as currently implemented). These new rules might include derating, tVac, slew rate measurement options, Eye Template (aka Eye Compliance, Eye Mask, Eye Aperture) rules, ?These enhancements to differential rules, along with additional enhancements to Single Ended rules can be implemented in months (if not weeks).The ?second? is to agree that in a future IBIS release that we would remove [Diff_pin] and replace it with [Diff_pin_model], and require that all differential ?stuff? be in [Diff_Model] sections instead of [Model] sections. I included the last e-mail containing an example of a differential model done both using existing 4.2 and the proposed ?5.0? method.The ?third? is to agree to clean up existing single ended and differential measurement rules. Candidate for this cleanup are:Tdiffslew_ac and Tslew_ac should be defined as between DC and AC instead of AC and ACAdd single ended derating Add single ended tVac rules Add single ended eye compliance rules Deprecate the following single ended IBIS rules Vinh+ Vinh- Vinl+ Vinl- Pulse_high Pulse_low Pulse_time Deprecate the following [Comment Char]The content of the files is case sensitive, except for reserved words and keywords.Note the definition of DeprecateTo make invalid or obsolete by flagging the item. When commands or statements in a language are planned for deletion in future releases of the compiler or rendering engine, they are said to be deprecated.I think the first step is to decide if and when we will take on the ?first?, ?second? and/or ?third? paths. Agree on the goals of each of these paths (both general content and implementation schedule). Then agree to an implementation plan.I personally would recommend the following specific actions in our January 8 meeting:1. Agree to move forward on the ?first? and ?third? options above, with a goal of submitting a formal Bird for approval by the end of Q1/08. 2. Agree to ?Deprecate? [Diff_pin]. This is simply a statement to the IBIS users that in some future IBIS (e.g. 5.0 in 2009) that a different approach to differential will be implemented.WalterBrief outline of [Diff_model] concept (by example).Existing implementation -----------------------[Component] MEM [Manufacturer] SiSoft [Pin] signal_name model_name R_pin L_pin C_pin E8 DQS+ DQS 41.35m 1.55nH 0.13pF F8 DQS- DQS 42.93m 1.55nH 0.12pF [End Pin] | [Diff_pin] inv_pin vdiff tdelay_typ tdelay_min tdelay_max E8 F8 .250V 0ns -50ps 50ps [End Diff_pin] |[End Component]|[Model] DQSModel_type I/O ? normal single pin IBIS stuff [Receiver Thresholds] Vcross_low = 0.675V Vcross_high = 1.125V Vdiff_ac = 500mV Vdiff_dc = 250mV Tdiffslew_ac = 5.000ns [End Receiver Thresholds] ? normal single pin IBIS stuff [End Model] [End]Proposed implementation -----------------------[Component] MEM [Manufacturer] SiSoft [Pin] signal_name model_name R_pin L_pin C_pin E8 DQS+ DQS 41.35m 1.55nH 0.13pF F8 DQS- DQS 42.93m 1.55nH 0.12pF [End Pin] |[Diff_pin_model] inv_pin diff_modelE8 F8 DQS_DIFF [End Diff_pin] |[End Component]| [Model] DQS Model_type I/O? normal single pin IBIS stuff (exclude differential [Receiver Thresholds] stuff)[End Model] | [Diff_model] DQS_DIFF Model_type Pseudo_Differential_I/O | Single_ended_capable True | | Buffer model | | Model Single_ended_model DQS | or Active_high_model DQS Active_low_model DQS | and? /or [External Model] ? [End External Model] | | Transmit active high/low skew | [Transmit Thresholds] tdelay_typ = 0ns tdelay_min = -50ps tdelay_max = 50ps | or tdelay 0ns -50ps 50ps [End Transmit Thresholds] | | Receiver analysis | [Algorithmic Model] Executable Windows_VisualStudio_32 dqs.dll dqs.ami [End Algorithmic Model] | [Receiver Thresholds]Vcross_low = 0.675V | Minimum common mode voltage at differential signal crossing 0VVcross_high = 1.125V | Maximum common mode voltage at differential signal crossing 0VVdiff = 250mV Vdiff_ac = 500mV Vdiff_dc = 250mV Tdiffslew_ac = 5.000ns [End Receiver Thresholds] ||[End Diff_model] | [End]
-- Bob Ross Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC Teraspeed Labs 121 North River Drive 13610 SW Harness Lane Narragansett, RI 02882 Beaverton, OR 97008 401-284-1827 503-430-1065 http://www.teraspeed.com 503-246-8048 Direct bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Teraspeed is a registered service mark of Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/ IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro To unsubscribe send an email: To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: unsubscribe