Scott, I was hoping that this discussion could continue to focus on timing methodology and not diverge to the simulator engine. In that vein, I would like to "up the ante" so to speak and move from DDR-I, which is a frozen spec, to the DDR-II spec which is still somewhat malleable. After all, it doesn't matter what we say about the DDR-I timing methodology anyway, it's too late to change. If applying a Flight Time Methodology to a 266MT/s DDR-I interface sounds "dinosaurish", cover your eyes... I am willing to wager that there is a 99% chance that the 400-600MT/s DDR-II DRAM spec will define: a) VIH/VIL, Tsu/Thold, etc. at the DRAM package pin b) tAC, tDQSQ, tDQSCK, etc. into a reference load Even if the 30pF cap is removed from the reference load we're implicitly talking about a Flight Time Methodology here. So, the questions I have posed regarding DDR-I in yr2001 will be recurring in yr2003. My question for you is: Are you willing to wager that these "legacy" parameters will be redefined in such a way that they are only valid at the input of the driver and output of the receiver? If not, how would the logic-to-logic timing methodology be applied in conjunction with the DDR-II spec? Regards, -jd --- Scott McMorrow <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jonathan, > > In my experience, there is still the problem that the "standard methodology" > for timing does not make the conditions under which timing is specified > explicit. Worst case timing specs assume and are characterized in > a particular package with a particular switching environment. This > is never fully specified. Then ... when we do system simulations we > include (some) package and power effects. In many cases, "standard > methodology" duplicates jitter, noise and timing effects which are > actually already incorporated in to the worst case timing numbers > for a device. Here, we double count these effects. In other > cases, many manufacturers do not perform a thorough device and > package characterization. Many "standard" behaviorial simulation > environments do not correctly simulate package crosstalk, power > and ground effects. Again, we miss the mark in actual performance. > > Jonathan Dowling wrote: > > > All, > > > > This all sounds good until its time to design to the DDR-DRAM spec. > > The legacy flight time methodology applies well here to integrate > > the spec numbers into a timing budget. > > > > It seems to me that for parallel interfaces involving separate strobes > > and data (no embedded clock), defining timing/voltage parameters at > > the pin boundary is inescapable for production components even if > > your company owns the entire network. The simulation-only methodology > > works great until something breaks. After that, diagnostic means are > > needed which do not require an E-BEAM. > > > > -jd > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from si-list: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field For help: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field List archives are viewable at: //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list or at our remote archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu