[SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- From: "joan vicent castell" <castell@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <Pat_Diao@xxxxxxxx>, <ldsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,<si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:00:35 +0200
Hello Pat,
You are right about the partial inductance. Doesn't meen anything without
the complete loop. The right equations are the ones in your second point.
The first one aplies when the current are in the same direction in both
loops (case of two equal inductances in paralel for example: you will have
more than half the inductance if they are coupled) and the secons one
applies when the currents are in oposite directions (case of a power-ground
lines of a device for example: if they are close each other the inductance
will minimize). Of course you have to use the same loops for
calculate/simulate L1, L2 and M12. If you do so there is no hundred
solutions.
Regards,
Joan V. Castell
UPC University
Catalonia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Pat Diao <Pat_Diao@xxxxxxxx>
To: <ldsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 1:51 AM
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> Very nice writing about the partial and loop inductance. I agree that a
> partial inductance is meaningless without defining the loop. However,
there
> are two practical questions remaining:
>
> 1. Most of the RLC extractors, including Ansoft Q3D which I use, only
> require users to define the source and sink locations on the net. You can
> draw a ground plane but it is not required, and sometimes there is no
ground
> plane nearby. It then calculates the inductance of the net, which is of
> course the "partial inductance". But the question is, where is the other
> portion of the "loop"? There could be a hundred different ways to define
> the other portion of the loop. Then will we have a hundred different
> inductance values for the net?
>
> 2. On the loop inductance, there is no question about
> L(loop) = L1 + L2 - 2*M12
> But occasionally one can see
> L(loop) = L1 + L2 + 2*M12
> Is this a totally wrong equation or the mutual inductance can be of
> different signs?
>
> Thanks,
> Pat
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Smith [mailto:ldsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1:56 PM
> To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
>
>
>
> Hmmm. Looks like my table separated by tabs did not make it...
> I'll try it again. The table in the text has been replaced.
>
> ------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------
>
> Ege - I don't believe there is any contridiction between non-unique
> inductance matricies and unique system voltages. Partial inductances
> are valid as long as they are defined in the context of a loop.
> Partial inductances by themselves have no meaning. But in an
> inductance matrix, where they are combined with all partials and
> mutuals in a loop, the extracted values (not unique) can be used to
> find unique voltages and currents within that loop.
>
> Take the example of two connector pins, one used for a signal and the
> other used for ground. Loop inductance in this case is L1+L2-2*M12
> (the sum of the self inductances minus two times the mutual inductance
> between them). The following partial and mutual inductances might be
> obtained from two different electromagnetic extractors:
>
> extractor L1 L2 M12 Loop L units
> --------- ----- ----- ----- ------ -----
> 1 10 10 9 2 nH
> 2 2 2 1 2 nH
>
> Which extractor got the right answer? They both did. Partial and
> mutual inductances are meaningless outside the context of a loop. Both
> sets of extracted data give the same loop inductances and will lead to
> unique voltages and currents when the loop is simulated in a circuit
> analysis tool, even though the extracted partial and mutual inductances
> are not unique. =20
>
> I see a lot of engineers try to use partial inductance (alone) in a
> circuit simulation. This is at best misleading and may give flat out
> wrong answers in the simulation. I don't think you will find any
> disagreement between Al Ruehli, Bryan Young or any of the other experts
> in this matter (please comment if I have misspoken).
>
> Now concerning measurements, simulation, SI and EMI... For SI
> purposes, it only makes sense to measure voltages in very local areas
> with a probe that has a very short ground lead. When we measure a
> signal with respect to (WRT) local ground, we have measured a
> "difference" voltage. This is a differential measurement, even if it
> is done with a single ended probe. We have not measured the signal WRT
> spice node 0, the center of the earth, or any other place in the
> system. If a simulation is set up correctly, the inductance matrix
> from either extractor 1 or 2 above will deliver an inductance matrix
> that can be simulated and match the hardware measurement of a signal
> WRT it's local ground.
>
> As Raymond Chen has stated in points one and two below, it does not
> make sense to measure anything other voltage WRT local ground. There
> are at least two problems with measurements that are not made WRT local
> ground. If we try to measure across several inches (significant
> portion of a wavelength) we are trying to measure across a time delay.
> What meaning is there in voltage measured across time? If we try to
> measure across a big inductance (i.e. connector pin), magnetic flux
> will penetrate the loop involving the inductance, probe and ground
> lead. The size of the measurement loop will determine the magnetic
> flux "captured" by that loop and lead to non unique measurements which
> depend on where the ground lead is positioned WRT the inductance. With
> probes, the only legitimate thing to measure is the difference between
> a node and it's local reference point, hopefully in an area where the
> time varying magnetic field is not significant.
>
> Even though we don't have a good way to measure "ground bounce" across
> a connector, I believe a circuit simulator with the inductance matrix
> from either extractor 1 or 2 above is capable of simulating the correct
> voltage across the ground pin of a connector (and getting an identical
> voltage solution from either matrix). If 10 signals crossed the
> connector and all switched the same way at the same time, there would
> be a huge (almost Vdd) voltage across the single ground pin. This is
> real and is what we call the SSN or SSO problem. It can cause flipped
> bits and EMI radiation as one local ground gets perturbed WRT to the
> other. Simulations of "ground bounce" are probably more trustworthy
> than measurement, assuming that all partial inductances and mutual
> inductances are given in the context of a loop. It is difficult to
> measure ground bounce directly. The best indicators of ground bounce
> are funny waveforms at the far end of a quiet line and EMI radiation.
>
> regards,
> Larry Smith
> Sun Microsystems
>
>
> > From: Ege Engin <engin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >=20
> > Raymond,
> >=20
> > The first thing that comes up to my mind is the concept of partial
induct=
> ance. Some
> > experts work with a unique defined partial inductance (e.g., C.R.Paul,
A.=
> E.Ruehli),
> > whereas some are against such a unique definition (e.g., B.Young). I
supp=
> ose you
> > fall into the second category. Indeed SI issues can be investigated
using=
> solely
> > terminal voltages (your 2.point). But voltage drop *along the conductor
i=
> tself* can
> > also give valuable information regarding the EMI behavior, because it
can=
> model some
> > unintended dipole antennas (according to the experts falling into the
fir=
> st
> > category). The question is, how can one resolve this contradiction, that
=
> an
> > ill-defined voltage in terms of SI becomes a useful tool in terms of
EMI?
> >=20
> > Regards
> > Ege
> >=20
> > "Raymond Y. Chen" schrieb:
> >=20
> > > Kevin,
> > >
> > > You raised a good question, and I=92ve been asked many times on this
is=
> sue, so
> > > please see my comments after your post:
> > >
> > > > Raymond,
> > > > Thanks for the link to the doc. I read
> > > > "http://www.sigrity.com/papers/ECTC2001/ECTC_LI1.pdf";.
> > > > In there, the authors show the effect of on-die decoupling on SSO
> > > > power/gnd
> > > > noise. The tables and conclusion say
> > > > on-die decoupling cap can reduce power/ground noise. I can see how
it
> > > > reduces the power line noise.
> > > > However, I can not understand how the on-die decoupling cap which
> > > > is placed
> > > > between power and
> > > > gound (on die, vss or substrait) can reduce the gound bounce. None
of=
> the
> > > > waveforms in this paper shows
> > > > the ground line. Can you please comment on that? Thanks.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Kevin Hui
> > > > LSI Logic
> > >
> > > First of all, voltage is defined between 2 nodes. So power bounce is
no=
> t
> > > something happening on power rail alone, it is the voltage fluctuation
> > > between power and ground.
> > >
> > > So where is the ground bounce voltage? It must be defined between 2
nod=
> es.
> > > And usually people will show such circuit diagram to define ground
boun=
> ce (I
> > > borrowed the drawing from ADEEL AHMAD=92s 4/10 post on this topic):
> > >
> > > -------PAD
> > > |
> > > |
> > > NMOS
> > > |
> > > |<<internal GND
> > > INDUCTOR
> > > |
> > > GROUND PIN
> > >
> > > Here the ground bounce is defined as the voltage drop crossed the
induc=
> tor,
> > > which models the interconnect parasitics (ground via, trace, plane)
> > >
> > > However, this definition derived from circuit-theory point of view
ofte=
> n is
> > > not valid and causes misleading concepts, especially in the high-speed
> > > design arena where Electromagnetic (EM) phenomena is the basics for
all
> > > circuit or SI issues. Because:
> > >
> > > 1. measuring voltage across a big distance (compare to
wavelength)=
> is not
> > > well defined. For example, defining the voltage between die-pad and
the
> > > package-pin; or defining the voltage between a point in the middle of
a=
> PCB
> > > and a point at the edge of the PCB, are not good if you are working in
=
> the
> > > hundreds of MHz range and beyond.
> > > 2. measuring AC voltage drop along the conductor itself is not
def=
> ined. For
> > > example, we often measure the voltage at the ends of a transmission
lin=
> e
> > > (the 2 ports); we don=92t measure the voltage drop across the
individua=
> l
> > > transmission line conductor. Voltage drop along the ground conductor
(e=
> xcept
> > > DC) is not well defined based on EM theory. Think about this, in the
ab=
> ove
> > > drawing, the inductor can not associate with just the conductor, the
> > > inductor has to associate with a loop, where is the loop?
> > >
> > > After all, the terminology of ground bounce itself can be misleading,
> > > because lot of people think that ground bounce can be viewed ON the
gro=
> und
> > > conductor, whereas actually ground bounce happens BETWEEN power and
gro=
> und.
> > > The only time you may and you can well define the voltage between 2
gro=
> und
> > > points is if these 2 ground points are very close (local port). For
exa=
> mple,
> > > between 2 ground C4 bumps. At that time, most flux in this loop is
well
> > > captured between these 2 points.
> > >
> > > Therefore it may be better to use the term Power/ground fluctuation
ins=
> tead
> > > of ground bounce.
> > >
> > > Lastly, please take a look at the commonly used one-dimension power
del=
> ivery
> > > model (illustrative):
> > >
> > > L R L R L R 1
> > > |---ooo---^^^---|---ooo---^^^---|---ooo---^^^---|----|
> > > | | | | |
> > > VRM ___ | | | |
> > > - | | | |
> > > | decap =3D=3D=3D decap =3D=3D=3D Cdie
=3D=3D=
> =3D |> buffer
> > > | | | | |
> > > | PCB | Pkg | chip | |
> > > | | | | |
> > > |---ooo---^^^---|---ooo---^^^---|---ooo---^^^---|----|
> > > 2 0
> > >
> > > To a driver, what is important is the local supply voltage between
node=
> 1
> > > and 0 (power and ground). And only V(1,0) can be well defined in the
co=
> rrect
> > > EM sense. The so-called =93ground bounce=94 between node 2 and 0 will
b=
> e ill
> > > defined and meaningless to the driver.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Raymond Y. Chen
> > > Sigrity, Inc.
> > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Raymond Y. Chen" <chen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > To: <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: <linwee70@xxxxxxxxx>; <Andrew.Ingraham@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 2:57 PM
> > > > Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce, IO and core
switch=
> ing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > During Simultaneous Switching Output (SSO) stage of I/O
> > > > buffers, the basic
> > > > > Electromagnetic (EM) phenomena affect the timing and waveform of
th=
> e
> > > > > signals. Trace coupling (even/odd mode for example) affect timing
a=
> nd
> > > > > waveform during SSO. Power/Ground bounce (also referred as
Simultan=
> eous
> > > > > Switching Noise - SSN) is another major mechanism that affects
Sign=
> al
> > > > > Integrity, since power/gound is the signal return path. Any
voltage
> > > > > fluctuations on the power/gound affect the driver switching
> > > > characteristics,
> > > > > driver/receiver end waveforms, and signal waveforms along the path
=
> where
> > > > > power/gound noise can reach in the form of EM wave propagation.
You=
> can
> > > > > think as moving charge, flux, inductance, and displacement current
=
> as
> > > > well.
> > > > > In essence, Maxwell equations rule.
> > > > >
> > > > > To illustrate this point and to see the mechanism that
> > > > contribute to "SSO
> > > > > Pushout", I just put up an animated slides on our web site to show
=
> the
> > > > > relation between SSO, power/gound bounce, signal Return Path
> > > > Discontinuity
> > > > > (RPD), and signal timing and waveform degradation.
> > > > > http://www.sigrity.com/papers/reply20020411/speedxp_ssn.ppt
> > > > >
> > > > > And also here is a functional demo software to simulate this
topic.
> > > > > http://www.sigrity.com/prod01_demodl.htm
> > > > > An application example is included (application notes, example 7)
t=
> o see
> > > > the
> > > > > SSO of 17 nets with gound bounce and RPD, with and without
decoupli=
> ng
> > > > > capacitors. You can change many parameters, such as with/without
tr=
> ace
> > > > > coupling, edge rates, power/ground structures, various decoupling
> > > > capacitors
> > > > > (models and locations), different switching bit patterns,
> > > > even/odd mode. A
> > > > > good technical paper to reference on this kind SSO simulation is
"A
> > > > > Simulation Study of Simultaneous Switching Noise" at:
> > > > > http://www.sigrity.com/papers/ECTC2001/ECTC_LI1.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > In the case of core logic SSO, the strong power/gound transient
cur=
> rents
> > > > > will generate dynamic EM noise and couple into I/O. This
phenomenon=
> is
> > > > > pointed out on another thread these two days - by Gil Gafni on
topi=
> c of
> > > > > "PCI Buffer Slew Rate", and you can also refer to this paper
"Integ=
> rated
> > > > > Modeling Methodology for Core and I/O Power Delivery" for some
> > > > discussions:
> > > > > http://www.sigrity.com/papers/ECTC2001/ECTC_LI2.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally I want to point out, just as Andy said, SSO noise
> > > > phenomena could
> > > > > either increase or reduce the signal delay. You can try to build
an
> > > > example
> > > > > with the demo software to show this, even though this time I
> > > > only provided
> > > > > the slides for "SSO Pushout".
> > > > >
> > > > > Raymond Y. Chen
> > > > > Vice President, Products and Services
> > > > > Sigrity, Inc.
> > > > > ********************************************
> > > > > 4675 Stevens Creek Blvd. Suite 130
> > > > > Santa Clara, CA 95051
> > > > > 408.260.9344 Ext 102
> > > > > ********************************************
> > > > > www.sigrity.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ingraham,
Andre=
> w
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 6:34 AM
> > > > > > To: linwee70@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Cc: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > " SSO pushout is a result of multiple drivers
> > > > > > > switching simultaneously. It impacts signal integrity
> > > > > > > through adding extra delay to the propagating signal"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I understand that we'll have more current in the
> > > > > > > return path due to simultaneous switching that may
> > > > > > > cause ground/plane bounce, but couldn't relate that to
> > > > > > > delay.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can someone explain this delay, as the text doesn't
> > > > > > > explain that ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are a few mechanisms that result in extra delay. (It
isn't
> > > > > > really a delay in the propagating signal, i.e. wires, but rather
=
> in
> > > > > > the driven signal coming out of the IC outputs.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One of them is simply this. When several outputs switch from
hig=
> h to
> > > > > > low, switching current flows in through the signal pins and N
tim=
> es
> > > > > > as much current goes out through the "ground" pins.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The ground system impedance turns this current into ground
bounce=
> ,
> > > > > > where on-die "ground" momentarily lifts above board "ground".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the outputs switching low, the pull-down transistor is on,
so
> > > > > > this ground bounce gets added to their outputs. Imagine simply
> > > > > > adding a small positive pulse to the outputs, while they switch.
> > > > > > Their falling edges are lifted up slightly, which also has the
> > > > > > appearance of moving them a little to the right --> greater
delay=
> .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So it is really just crosstalk by way of the on-die ground
bounce=
> .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The same thing happens for rising edges, except it is the VDD or
=
> VCC
> > > > > > that bounces or sags.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sure there are other mechanisms at work too. Note that SSO
> > > > > > can both increase and decrease delays, at least in principle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Andy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Gil Gafni
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 12:21 PM
> > > > > > To: Si-List
> > > > > > Subject: [SI-LIST] PCI Buffer Slew Rate
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Experts,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As part of an SSO analysis that we are conducting, we noticed an
=
> odd
> > > > > > behavior of the PCI buffer -
> > > > > > 1. It looks like it is influenced by the noise on the core Vdd
> > > > > > (logic side of it) and NOT to the IO Vdd.
> > > > > > 2. The sensitivity to Vdd core changes is very high; any added
> > > > > > 100mV of noise can add 1nSec to the pushout.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The bottom line is that with a moderate noise on Vdd of 375 mV
we=
> have
> > > > > > 1nS of push out, and find it very hard to pass (no or
> > > > negative margins)
> > > > > > Any recommendations?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gil Gafni
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------=
> -
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from si-list:
> > > > > > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject
f=
> ield
> > > > > >
> > > > > > or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
> > > > > > //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from si-list:
> > > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
> > >
> > > or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
> > > //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> >=20
> >=20
> > -- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
> > -- Type: text/x-vcard
> > -- File: engin.vcf
> > -- Desc: Visitenkarte f=FCr Ege Engin
> >=20
> >=20
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from si-list:
> > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
> >=20
> > or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
> > //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
> >=20
> > For help:
> > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
> >=20
> > List archives are viewable at: =20
> > =09=09//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
> > or at our remote archives:
> > =09=09http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages=20
> > Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
> > =09=09http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
> > =20
> >=20
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from si-list:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>
> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------- End Forwarded Message -------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from si-list:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>
> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from si-list:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>
> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>
> 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
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
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
Other related posts:
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
- » [SI-LIST] Re: SSO pushout, ground bounce definition
