RE: IBIS - I/O Buffer Modeling Cookbook

Hi :

The IBIS ver. 3.2 is not written in CookBook,
but the method is found in Specification Section 9 4)
point
transit Time extraction , it may be some help for to
find the wave form.

Thank!

ibis-users from yahoo

Hello Yoked:

We are temporarily having reflector e-mail problems,
so you message did not get sent to the general list.

However, I am responding on the ibis-users reflector
and copying Stephen Peters, who authored the Cookbook.
My responses are in your text noted by "*" marks.
These
are brief responses without looking at the Cookbook
document. I am trying to convey what was intended,
not any editorial issues regarding how it is
documented.

Bob Ross
Mentor Graphics

---------------------

Subject: I/O buffer modeling cookbook
From: Yoked Erlich (r58559) (r58559@email.sps.mot.com)
Date: Sun Aug 12 2001 - 04:18:21 PDT

Hi ,

I would like to ask some questions about the 'I/O
buffer modeling
cookbook'
paper (revision 2.0X) , Which I've got from
'www.eig.org' web site.

1. Is there anywhere I can find revision 3.2 cookbook?

* No, a Version 3.2 Cookbook has not been written.
Cookbook 2 was
intended to cover Version 3.2 features, but we never
got that far.

2. I've an I/O buffer model which working in some chip
pads as I/O ,
some pads as steady input and some pads as steady
output.
    I would like to know if the buffer grouping is
made by the buffer
type or by the pad direction?
    If buffer type is the answer so one model with I/O
type in enough
for this buffer,
    If pad direction is the answer so three model is
needed for this
buffer , I/O model , Input model and Output model
    ( in this case Input and Output model tests will
be exactly the same
as I/O model ) .

* If the buffer is truely an I/O, then it should be
provided and
documented as I/O. A user might have additional
knowledge that
certain I/O buffers are configured only as Input or
Output buffers.
It would be permissible to modify that instance of the
model and
just change the Model_type. That would help the EDA
tool do
only the simulations that are relevant for the design.

3-6 questions are about 'Extracting Data for the
[Ramp] keyword'
paragraph in the cookbook :
3. It is written that 'if the device does not have
enough
     drive capability to make a significant output
transition than a
higher load may be used' ,
     How much is significant output transition ?

* I do not have any hard guideline. I prefer
impedances in the
order of magnitude of transmission line loads since
that is a
typical high-speed design application. That ususally
captures
a fast edge that would be seen with a PCB
interconnect.

* This makes no sense for certain weak buffers which
would
require multiple reflections to change from one state
to the
other for an open line. If the application is not
high-speed,
then it does not manner. I would guess that a higher
value
load might be OK for a driver source impedance > 300
ohms.
Others might have different ideas.

4. it is written that ' For an open drain , measure
the rise and fall
time into the load resistor and voltage used
    by the manufacture when specifying propagation
delays' , This
sentence is not clear
    what is the test structure in open drain buffer
case?.

* This is ambiguous. I prefer low impedance (50 ohm)
pullups to
capture a faster edge. This may be in the order of
magnitude of
the load seen during the intial part of the transition
when the
device is connected through a PCB interconnect.

5. it is written that ' Falling edge ramp data is
captured with the load
resistor tied to VCC'
    , Is VCC mean the pmos Driver source voltage (pad
voltage) or low
voltage?

* This means that one end of the load resistor is
connected to
Vcc, and the other end is connected to the output pad.

6. It is written that 'simulations are performed with
C_comp included in
the circuit' , This sentence is not clear.
    As I understood C_comp is the capacitance seen
when looking from the
pad back into the buffer ,
    It is written that C_comp should be added to the
simulation , but
C_comp is not a capacitor it is capacitance
measurement.

* It is difficult to de-embed the die capacitance
information from a
Spice net list (since some of the contribution is due
to paramaters
within the transistor/diode models) or from a real
physical measurements.

* So the intent is to clarify that the die capacitance
is already
included in any waveform extraction. Since C_comp is
a first order
approximation of the die capacitance, its effects
should be included
in an EDA tool simulation. I have not looked at the
specific
wording, but I assume this is confusing.

7. In 'Ground Clamp' paragraph it is written that 'The
data in table
must cover the range of -Vcc to Vcc ' ,
    Isn't it suppose to be -Vcc to 2*Vcc ?

* This response also covers 9.

* No, the minimum range is intended to be -vcc to vcc.
 The Power
Clamp covers from vcc to 2vcc. When this minimum
range was
established, most Inputs were at negligle current at
Vcc and the
slope (current vs voltage) was also nearly 0. So
concatenation
of the tables produced the same effect as
extrapolation.

* It is allowed to extend the clamp ranges beyond the
specified
range. In some cases you should do so, especially if
you are
including the effect of an internal terminator. In
such cases,
the conditions above are not met, and I prefer -vcc to
2vcc for
both clamp tables. Care must be taken so that
currents are not double counted. However, for many
situations,
the "minimal" IBIS guidelines are sufficient.

8. In 'pulldn' paragraph it is written 'If the buffer
is a 3-state
device then first subtract the ground clamp current
    from the pulldown current then enter the result
into the [pulldown]
table' ,
    first , it is written above the graph 'Pullup I/V
curve after
subtraction of ground clamp currents' Which is
probably mistake.
    second , Should I replace the pulldn results in
Ibis model file
after the subtraction?

* What is entered in the [Pulldown] table is the
result after
subtraction.

9. In 'Power Clamp' It is written that 'the data in
the table must cover
the range of vcc to vcc*2' ,
    Isn't the range suppose to be -Vcc to 2*Vcc ?

* See 7 above.

--
With regards,
Yoked.
_____________________________________
E-mail:       yokede@msil.sps.mot.com
Tel: 972-9-9522482 Fax: 972-9-9522888
WIRELESS     CIRCUIT  - IO      GROUP
MOTOROLA     SEMICONDUCTOR     ISRAEL
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
登記免費的 @yahoo.com.tw 電子郵件 @ http://mail.yahoo.com.tw
Get your free @yahoo.com.tw address at http://mail.yahoo.com.tw