James, Knowing that Walter is enjoying the IEEE meetings in Hawaii, I will try to help a little. Please refer to the flow diagram that was used in the discussions towards the new flow. See pg. 17 in this presentation: http://www.vhdl.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/archive/20100713/toddwesterhoff/IBIS-AMI%20Flows/Flows_July2010-v2.pdf Note that the input to the Tx GetWave function is labeled "Digital stimulus" and x(t). Also note that x(t) is explained in more detail in this presentation on pg. 13-14: http://www.vhdl.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/archive/20061212/toddwesterhoff/Serial%20Link%20Terminology/serial_link_terminology.pdf where "TX data" is b(t) convolved with p(t) which we later simply referred to as x(t) in our flow diagrams. Please note also that on pg. 17 of the first presentation above, the output of Tx GetWave is convolved with the channel impulse response hAC(t) and the result of that is the input to Rx GetWave. There is no analog model present in this flow. The analog model was used in generating the channel's impulse response hAC(t), but it is not driven by the output of Tx GetWave as you concluded. So your conclusions that: " Equivalently, the legacy IBIS [Ramp] and [Rising/Falling Waveform] keywords have no roles in this process." and "D_to_A is not needed in IBIS AMI, or at least in between Tx AMI block and its analog block. Because the output of Tx AMi is already analog, why bother using a D_to_A? " seem to be incorrect to me. As far as I know the analog models are exercised the same way as in a usual legacy IBIS simulation using the tool's digital stimulus (though the D_to_A converters in Tx), driving the channel topology by the Tx I-V, [Ramp] or V-t based analog model, to obtain an impulse response as seen at the Rx. Of course there are other techniques to achieve equivalent results, but it is not the role of the IBIS specification to enumerate all possible methods in the trade. I hope this helps... Arpad ========================================================================= From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Zhou Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 9:02 PM To: Walter Katz; Terry.Chen@xxxxxxxxxx; DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx; 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Question on dividing up the Tx behavior between the AMI and analog portions of the model Hi Walter, Thanks for your response and clarification. The issues can be separated as the following: (1) "determine the Impulse Response of a channel": I fully agree with you that "Tx analog portion takes the output of the algorithmic section of an AMI model". Equivalently, the legacy IBIS [Ramp] and [Rising/Falling Waveform] keywords have no roles in this process. This is a subject that has caused much confusion in the end-user community and we need to clarify it in terms of both (a) what are the intentions of model makers when IBIS AMI analog model data is put in [Ramp] [Raising/Falling Waveform] keywords and (b) What should the EDA tools do about those data in IBIS AMI modeling (i.e. when deriving impulse response) (2) "the fundamental confusion of using [External Model] with IBIS-ISS subckts": in my opinion, D_to_A is not needed in IBIS AMI, or at least in between Tx AMI block and its analog block. Because the output of Tx AMi is already analog, why bother using a D_to_A? ( I understand D_to_A is useful for general IBIS [External Model] not involving AMI). (3) "one must be very careful to make sure that return loss is properly accounted for": I fully agree. IBIS Specification should provide clear guidelines on how to achieve this both at model creation time and model simulation time. I think enforcing reverse isolation is too restrictive for existing silicon implementation and it will cause larger errors when return loss is lower. It is much simpler and better to require the disclosure (knowledge) of Tx AMI block output impedance (which is assumed to be high impedance by many, anyway) and, not imposing any artificial requirements on the AMI analog block (such as reverse isolation which in fact does not exist in many silicon). Thanks, James Zhou From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx]> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 4:50 PM To: James Zhou; Terry.Chen@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Terry.Chen@xxxxxxxxxx>; DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Question on dividing up the Tx behavior between the AMI and analog portions of the model James, The IBIS analog model is only useful to determine the Impulse Response of a channel. You are absolutely correct that in reality a SerDes Tx analog portion takes the output of the algorithmic section of an AMI model to drive an analog model (e.g. an on-die S-parameter s4p, a simpler RC circuit at described in BIRD 122, or an ISS subckt as defined in BIRD 116). IBIS AMI assumes an LTI channel, and IBIS-ISS defines all of the LTI elements available in HSPICE. This is the fundamental confusion of using [External Model] with IBIS-ISS subckts describing the analog section. As written now, BIRD 116 identifies the input of the Tx ISS subckt using the D_to_A statement, which essentially defines a voltage swing and rise time - equivalent to Ramp. The correct interpretation is that the D_to_A statement is only to define the input to the Tx analog circuit, and is valid to determine the Impulse Response of the channel. Because of silicon drivers are in fact LTI, one can do the shaping of the waveform in the algorithmic section, but one must be very careful to make sure that return loss is properly accounted for. Walter From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]> On Behalf Of James Zhou Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 5:11 PM To: Terry.Chen@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Terry.Chen@xxxxxxxxxx>; DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Question on dividing up the Tx behavior between the AMI and analog portions of the model Hi David and Terry, Both of your emails mentioned "analog IBIS model" and "IBIS-analog portion" represented by [Ramp] and/or [Rising/Falling Waveform] keywords in IBIS file. However, these "analog" IBIS models only take digital input signals, as stated in IBIS Specification 5.0, page 71-72 and section 6b. The output of the "analog" IBIS model is not capable of tracking the amplitude changes in the input (other than a rise/fall transition). It would not make sense to feed the Tx AMI output to such digital inputs based on IBIS Specification 5.0. If this approach of using [Ramp] and/or [Rising/falling Waveform] keywords to represent "analog IBIS model" is adopted by IBIS AMI flow, some clarification is needed on how to interpret and implement it. Regards, James Zhou QLogic Corp. From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]> On Behalf Of Chen, Terry Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 10:33 AM To: DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Question on dividing up the Tx behavior between the AMI and analog portions of the model Hi David, Actually I am interested in other's response to this question as well... But, for the TX Driver I am currently modeling, I am doing exactly what you have prescribed and using the IBIS-analog portion as effectively an ideal step function (by setting my ramp with extremely high rise/fall dv/dt) and letting the step response filter inside my AMI model to shape my output waveform. Now, I am not sure if this is the "right" or "ideal" way to do it, but I am getting a reasonably good correlation in my Re-driver model with the actual lab measurements (the max jitter mismatch is < 8ps). I hope this is at least an useful data point for you. Regards, Terry From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]> On Behalf Of David Banas Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 1:15 PM To: 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: [ibis-macro] Question on dividing up the Tx behavior between the AMI and analog portions of the model Hi all, Is it customary to split up the Tx behavior, such that the FFE is modeled in the AMI model and the pulse shaper in the analog model? Or, is there a different dividing line that has been identified as "best practice". (Or, am I completely off in the weeds?) The context for this question: I just managed to get good correlation between our latest Tx AMI model and the HSPICE model. And then I realized that, having dumped all of the behavior into the AMI model, I would need to put an ideal step function into the V-T curves of the analog IBIS model. And I wasn't sure that would be a good idea. (I'm guessing that that would reek havoc in most simulators; is that correct?) Thanks, David Banas Sr. Member Technical Staff Altera<http://www.altera.com/> +1-408-544-7667 - desk Did you know Altera offers over 150 free online technical training courses<http://www.altera.com/servlets/searchcourse?coursetype=Online&WT.mc_id=t9_ot_mi_mi_tx_a_311>? Take one today! ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice. This message may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message, or any attachments, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. ________________________________ This message and any attached documents contain information from QLogic Corporation or its wholly-owned subsidiaries that may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. ________________________________ This message and any attached documents contain information from QLogic Corporation or its wholly-owned subsidiaries that may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.