RE: IBIS BIRD68 - Clarify that Rising and Falling Waveforms Shoul d be Correlated

Matthew,

That's an interesting point. Here is what I am thinking should happen.
When the simulator vendors see the clarified spec, they should modify their
simulators so that if the simulator truncates any time from the front part
of a waveform, it will truncate the same amount of time from all of the
waveforms. (I'm assuming that they would not remove any part of an active
transition, so the earliest waveform would control how much time might be
truncated.) Then if an earlier model (that may not have waveforms
correlated) is used on a newer simulator, the duty cycle will be still be in
error, (but the simulation should run OK.) The older simulation duty cycle
would have been erroneous anyway, because the waveforms were not correlated
in the first place.

Best regards,

David Lorang
Intel, Chandler
david.d.lorang@intel.com
(480)554-7891

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Flora [mailto:mbflora@mail.hyperlynx.com]
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 2:06 PM
To: ibis@eda.org
Subject: Re: IBIS IRD68 - Clarify that Rising and Falling Waveforms
Should be Correlated

All,

I'm concerned about using older models where the [Rising Waveform]'s within
a
[Model] are time correlated to each other and the [Falling Waveform]'s
within
that [Model] are time correlated to each other, but no time correlation
exists
between the [Rising waveform]'s and the [Falling Waveform]'s. How is the
simulator to recognize one of these models made prior to the clarification
and
a model made after the clarification? Would it be based upon the [IBIS_ver]
value?

Regards,
Matthew Flora
Innoveda

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Ross" <bob_ross@mentorg.com>
To: <ibis@eda.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 12:54 PM
Subject: IBIS IRD68 - Clarify that Rising and Falling Waveforms Should be
Correlated

> To All:
>
> BIRD68 by David Lorang is issued for clarification.
>
> Bob Ross
> Mentor Graphics
>
>
****************************************************************************
**
>
****************************************************************************
**
>
> Buffer Issue Resolution Document (BIRD)
>
>
> BIRD ID#: 68
> ISSUE TITLE: Clarify that Rising and Falling Waveforms Should be
Correlated
> REQUESTOR: David Lorang, Intel
> DATE SUBMITTED: October 24, 2000
> DATE ACCEPTED BY IBIS OPEN FORUM: Pending
>
>
****************************************************************************
**
*
>
****************************************************************************
**
*
>
> STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE:
>
> Rising waveform data should be correlated with falling waveform data
to
> help simulators provide accurate duty cycles for their output
> waveforms.
>
>
****************************************************************************
**
*
>
> STATEMENT OF THE RESOLVED SPECIFICATIONS:
>
> Add the following new paragraph to the [Rising Waveform], [Falling
> Waveform] Keywords in Section 6 before the paragraph that starts with, "A
> [Model] specification can contain more that one rising edge...":
>
> | The data in all of the waveform tables should be time
> | correlated. In other words, the edge data in each of the
> | tables (rising and falling) should be entered with respect
to
> | a point in time when the input stimulus is assumed to have
> | initiated a logic transition. The first line in each
> | waveform table should be assumed to be the reference point
in
> | time corresponding to a logic transition. For example,
> | assume that some internal rising edge logic transition
starts
> | at time = 0. Then a rising edge voltage-time table might
be
> | created starting at time zero. The first several table
> | entries might be some "lead-in" time caused by some
undefined
> | internal buffer delay before the voltage actually starts
> | transitioning. The falling edge stimulus--for the purpose
of
> | setting reference time for the voltage-time curve--should
also
> | start at time = 0. And, the falling edge voltage-time
table
> | would be created starting at time zero with a possibly
> | different amount of "lead-in" time caused by a possibly
> | different--but corresponding--falling edge internal buffer
> | delay. Any actual device differences in internal buffer
> | delay time between rising and falling edges should appear
as
> | differing lead-in times between the rising and the falling
> | waveforms in the tables just as any differences in actual
> | device rise and fall times appear as differing
voltage-time
> | entries in the tables.
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************************
**
*
>
> ANALYSIS PATH/DATA THAT LED TO SPECIFICATION:
>
> This change is necessary because errors in the relationship between rising
and
> falling edges cause duty cycle distortion in the simulated waveform.
> Preserving the timing relationship between rising and falling edge timing
is
> important due to the effects of inter-symbol interference (ISI).
Intersymbol
> interference can be thought of as the effect of the previous edge (and in
fact
> edges before that) on the signal quality of the current edge of a signal.
If
> the timing between a previous and current edge is in error, then the ISI
effect
> will be inaccurate also.
>
> Note that an I/O buffer specification characterizes the shape of a buffers
> output waveform and does not and usually cannot, determine the internal
delay
> of that buffer. It is the duty of a component data sheet to express the
> timing relationships between its various I/O pins. But the timing
> relationship between an output buffer's own rising and falling edges is
> characterization of that output buffer and does fall within the realm of
the
> buffer's specification, and thus that timingrelationship should be
preserved,
> if possible.
>
> The specification makes it clear that multiple waveforms for a given
signal
> edge should be time correlated, but it does not specifically state that
> correlation should also be maintained between rising and falling edges.
>
>
> Consider the following example:
>
> A buffer has the following measured Tco (Time Clock-to-output) values.
>
> Tco (rising edge): 2ns
> Tco (falling edge): 3ns
>
> Suppose that we have measured waveforms as shown in the timing diagram
below.
>
>
> 0ns 10ns 20ns
>
> | | |
>
> ___________________ ____________________
> | | | |
> | | | |
> CLK | |___________________| |
>
> ___________________ _________________
> / \ /
> / \ /
> OUTPUT __/ \_______________/
>
>
> |<->| TcoR = 2ns |<-->| TcoR = 3ns
>
>
> Although IBIS modeling does not deal with Tco directly, it does model the
> shapes of the waveforms. For the measured information above, an IBIS
model
> might be created to provide the following rising and falling waveforms:
>
>
> Vfinal ___ ___
> /
> /
> Rising /
> /
> /
> Vinitial ___ /
>
> Vinitial ___
> \
> \
> Falling \
> \
> \
> Vfinal ___ \___
>
>
> | | |
>
> T=0 T=2 T=3 (ns)
>
>
> And if so, although the waveforms are the correct shape, a time domain
> simulation would provide erroneous and misleading results:
>
>
> 0ns 10ns 20ns
>
> | | |
>
> ___________________
____________________
> | | |
|
> | | |
|
> CLK | |___________________|
|
>
> ___________________
_________________
> / \ /
> Original OUTPUT / \ /
> __/ \_______________/
>
>
> |<->| TcoR = 2ns |<-->| TcoF = 3ns
>
> ________________
_________________
> / \ /
> Simulated OUTPUT / \ /
> / \_________________/
>
>
> |-| TcoR = 1ns |-| TcoF = 1ns
>
>
> The timing diagram shows that the delay from clock to output has
changed--and
> that is OK because IBIS is not intended to specify that. The problem is
that
> the rising and falling edges have changed by different amounts causing
duty
> cycle distortion of the simulated waveform.
>
> A better handling of this situation would have the rising and falling
> waveforms correlated so that for our example the IBIS V-T models would
look
> like this:
>
>
> Vfinal ___ ___
> /
> /
> Rising /
> /
> /
> Vinitial ___ /
>
> Vinitial ___ ___
> \
> \
> Falling \
> \
> \
> Vfinal ___ \___
>
>
> | | | |
>
> T=0 T=1 T=2 T=3 (ns)
>
> With these waveforms when a time domain simulation is run, the waveform
would
> still have a different Tco than the original measurement, but because the
> rising and falling edges are correlated, the output signal shape is
accurate
> (i.e. the simulated waveform no longer has the duty cycle distortion.)
>
>
> 0ns 10ns 20ns
>
> | | |
>
> ___________________
____________________
> | | |
|
> | | |
|
> CLK | |___________________|
|
>
> ___________________
_________________
> / \ /
> Original OUTPUT / \ /
> __/ \_______________/
>
>
> |<->| TcoR = 2ns |<-->| TcoF = 3ns
>
> ___________________ _________________
> / \ /
> Simulated OUTPUT/ \ /
> / \______________/
>
>
> |-| TcoR = 1ns |<->| TcoF = 2ns
>
>
> In summary, the IBIS specification should maintain correlation between all
> rising and falling waveforms to enable simulators that use the IBIS data
to
> provide accurate results.
>
>
>
****************************************************************************
**
*
>
> ANY OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
>
>
>
****************************************************************************
**
*
>

 
Received on Fri Nov 3 14:59:10 2000