Another option could be to make a statement in the spec that the (digital) output of the analog Rx model should be used as the (digital) stimulus for the analog Tx model when this keyword exists for normal analog simulations. Arpad ========================================================== From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:49 AM To: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx; twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx; ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx Cc: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: redriver in spice simulation Hi All, I think a very simple solution is to limit the scope of the [Repeater Pin] to AMI applications. In legacy IBIS simulations that keyword can simply be ignored, exactly the same way the keyword [Algorithmic Model] is ignored today. Also, the Maxim-Agilent BIRD on redrivers can go as is. When the repeater BIRD is ratified, it can simply then apply to redrivers (and perhaps repeaters). Radek From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:11 AM To: twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx>; ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: redriver in spice simulation Hi, Todd; We got into this discussion because if we introduce a new keyword for redriver/repeater such as the one in Walter’s repeater BIRD, we will have to define the redriver behavior in non-AMI simulations. That’s why I didn’t introduce new keyword in the Maxim-Agilent redriver BIRD and limited it to the AMI context. Regards, Fangyi From: Todd Westerhoff [mailto:twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:48 AM To: 'Ambrish Varma' Cc: RAO,FANGYI (A-USA,ex1); ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: redriver in spice simulation Ambrish, If you’re not including the algorithmic part, then the equalization isn’t getting modeled. Why bother? Todd. Todd Westerhoff VP, Software Products Signal Integrity Software Inc. • www.sisoft.com<http://www.sisoft.com> 6 Clock Tower Place • Suite 250 • Maynard, MA 01754 (978) 461-0449 x24 • twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx> “I want to live like that” -Sidewalk Prophets From: Ambrish Varma [mailto:ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:46 AM To: Todd Westerhoff Cc: fangyi rao; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: redriver in spice simulation Todd, We were discussing how a normal time domain (non-AMI) simulation will work with a redriver in the middle of a channel. I suggested that shorting the redriver Rx pins with the related Tx should work as the simulator will take care of the analog waveforms going out from the Rx and in the Tx – but that will not work as we describe below. Thanks, Ambrish. From: Todd Westerhoff [mailto:twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:24 PM To: Ambrish Varma Cc: fangyi rao; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [ibis-macro] Re: redriver in spice simulation Ambrish, I guess I missed part of this conversation. What problem are you trying to solve? Todd. Todd Westerhoff VP, Software Products Signal Integrity Software Inc. • www.sisoft.com 6 Clock Tower Place • Suite 250 • Maynard, MA 01754 (978) 461-0449<978-461-0449> x24 • twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx “I want to live like that” -Sidewalk Prophets ________________________________ From: "Ambrish Varma" <ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx>> To: "fangyi rao" <fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:34:02 PM Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: redriver in spice simulation Fangyi, Actually, if we short the Rx and Tx of the redriver, regular spice simulations using IBIS models and analog repeaters will have issues with the Tx trying to pullup to power and pulldown to ground. In that case, redriver simulation within the realm of an IBIS cct, solutions can be: 1) No spice (non AMI) simulation allowed for redrivers (easier) 2) Series switch like implementation (harder) Thanks, Ambrish. From: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:58 PM To: Ambrish Varma; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: redriver in spice simulation Hi, Ambrish; I am not sure if your suggestion of shorting redriver Rx ibis output pin to the redriver Tx ibis input pin in spice simulations will work because in spice simulations 1. legacy Tx ibis model is driven by input signal threshold crossing events. That’s not how a redriver Tx half is driven by input signal. 2. legacy Rx ibis model output is a digital signal of 1’s and 0’s (hopefully I am correct here). That’s not what redriver Rx half outputs. Due to the uncertainties in redriver model behavior in non-AMI simulations, I prefer to keep my redriver BIRD separate from Walter’s repeater BIRD, at least for now. Regards, Fangyi