All NC is not always the best choice for analog pins. We often use a terminator model for analog pins. It allows simulators to at least check for crosstalk into analog nets. And some simulators will complain if a net is connected in a system but has no model associated with it. The terminator model can be just the key word, the voltage range and no other elements. Having a terminator model present for true NC pins also allows the stub effect of a pin to be simulated if a net goes through a NC and connects to it. For example some static protections device like the ones from CMD recommend routing through the footprint and picking up NC pins in the path between the active pin and the input to the next IC in the net. If a NC model is used then some simulators will either not allow that connection or not simulate the stub effect of the package. Tom Dagostino Teraspeed(R) Labs 13610 SW Harness Lane Beaverton, OR 97008 503-430-1065 tom@teraspeed.com www.teraspeed.com Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC 121 North River Drive Narragansett, RI 02882 401-284-1827 From: owner-ibis@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:13 AM To: ibis@server.eda.org; ibis-users@server.eda.org Subject: RE: [IBIS-Users] RE: [IBIS] I-V and V-t curve mismatch If you use legacy IBIS, then yes, you will have to put NC for any analog buffers. But if you are using IBIS with *-AMS, you can also make analog models and list them on the [Pin] list. Arpad ===================================================== _____ From: owner-ibis-users@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis-users@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Sudarshan H N Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:06 AM To: Todd Westerhoff Cc: ibis@server.eda.org; ibis-users@server.eda.org Subject: Re: [IBIS-Users] RE: [IBIS] I-V and V-t curve mismatch Hi All, Thanks Tom ,Todd Scott and Arpad for your valuable answers. Arpad, with your clear explanation i am able to solve all the problems i had in my modeling. One general question i have to the forum is , in the IBIS website is all the mails are stored in some central location. Because i was accessing IBIS forum mails from my other email id 3 months back. Now i am accessing from other email id. I think sometime back there was a question on analog pads IBIS model. Do i need to put a NC for these pads in pin mapping section ? Regards Sudarshan On 10/23/07, Todd Westerhoff <twesterh@sisoft.com> wrote: Oops, You're right: -VDDQ to 2*VDDQ. Todd. Todd Westerhoff VP, Software Products SiSoft 6 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 (978) 461-0449 x24 twesterh@sisoft.com www.sisoft.com _____ From: owner-ibis@eda.org [mailto: owner-ibis@eda.org <mailto:owner-ibis@eda.org> ] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:01 PM To: ibis@eda.org; ibis-users@eda.org Subject: RE: [IBIS-Users] RE: [IBIS] I-V and V-t curve mismatch While both Tom and Todd are suggesting the right thing, I think both need some correction, or clarification... Todd wrote "-2*VDD to 2*VDD" in which the first -2*VDD should have read -VDD. Tom's comment about using typical VDD is correct for the range calculation but you need to be careful an not apply that suggestion to the VDD of the power you apply to the device under test and the VDD-relative calculations (in case you don't measure it VDD relative directly). So to sum it up, my numbers in my first reply were calculated as follows: For the pulldown the sweep range is always: -VDD_typ to 2*VDD_typ = -3.3 to 6.6, regardless of which case you are generating, i.e. whether the supply voltage to the chip is typ=3.3, min=3.0, or max=3.6 volts (assuming that the chip's pulldown is connected to GND or 0 volts). For the pullup, which is swept VDD relative, the numbers for the sweep ranges in GND relative orientation will work out this way: -VDD_typ to 2*VDD_typ with respect to VDD_typ = 6.6 to -3.3 -VDD_typ to 2*VDD_typ with respect to VDD_min = 6.3 to -3.6 -VDD_typ to 2*VDD_typ with respect to VDD_max = 6.9 to -3.0 Note that this numbers are only this confusing because you are looking at the sweep ranges in a GND relative way, while you are really doing the same rule as above for the pulldown with respect to VDD. Of course the direction of the sweep is irrelevant, as long as the device doesn't act up. Some times devices can do funny things depending on which direction you do the sweep. Also, to help the simulator to find an operating point I suggest that you start the seep at the same rail voltage the device is driving to (i.e. VDD for logic high or GND for logic low) and then do the sweep you need for the IBIS model. There is a better chance to get the simulator converge that way... I hope this helps, Arpad =========================================================== _____ From: owner-ibis-users@server.eda.org [mailto: <mailto:owner-ibis-users@server.eda.org> owner-ibis-users@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Todd Westerhoff Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 10:09 AM To: ibis@server.eda.org; ibis-users@server.eda.org Cc: tom@teraspeed.com Subject: [IBIS-Users] RE: [IBIS] I-V and V-t curve mismatch I agree with Tom. The choice of -2*VDD to 2*VDD is somewhat arbitrary . it's simply meant to ensure that you have valid V/I data for any voltage that the part will be exposed to. Thus, you don't need to adjust the voltage ranges based on the MIN and MAX cases. For most technologies, if you have overshoot that's equal to the supply voltage, you have bigger problems than model accuracy ! Todd. Todd Westerhoff VP, Software Products SiSoft 6 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 (978) 461-0449 x24 twesterh@sisoft.com www.sisoft.com _____ From: owner-ibis@eda.org [mailto: owner-ibis@eda.org <mailto:owner-ibis@eda.org> ] On Behalf Of Tom Dagostino Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 12:11 PM To: 'Sudarshan H N'; 'Mirmak, Michael' Cc: ibis@eda.org; ibis-users@eda.org Subject: RE: [IBIS] I-V and V-t curve mismatch Model all three corners from -Vdd to 2*Vdd where Vdd is the typical voltage. Tom Dagostino Teraspeed(R) Labs 13610 SW Harness Lane Beaverton, OR 97008 503-430-1065 tom@teraspeed.com www.teraspeed.com Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC 121 North River Drive Narragansett, RI 02882 401-284-1827 From: owner-ibis@server.eda.org [mailto: <mailto:owner-ibis@server.eda.org> owner-ibis@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Sudarshan H N Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 7:43 AM To: Mirmak, Michael Cc: ibis@server.eda.org; ibis-users@server.eda.org Subject: Re: [IBIS] I-V and V-t curve mismatch Hi Michael & All, Can you people answer to my question regarding the voltage ranges in MIN and MAX case as explained below. As Arpad mentioned in one of the earlier mails the range for MIN and MAX case is typ: -3.3 to 6.6 min: -3.6 to 6.3 max: -3.0 to 6.9 How do we select this range for MIN and MAX case. Is there any document which explains the selection criteria for these corners ? If there is no logic , then how can we decide if the supply is 1.8 V supply or 2.5V supply? Let me know your answers. Regards Sudarshan On 10/19/07, Sudarshan H N < hn.sudarshan@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Michael, Thanks for your detailed reponse. I made a small mistake in putting the voltage ranges as you mentioned. As i was writing a new tool , at this point of time i didnt give much attention to printing correct voltage range , and i was only worried about the correct extraction of V-t and I-V tables. I have considered the formula you have mentioned for calculating Vcc-relative Pullup and Powerclamp tables. I changed the voltage range to (3.3, 3.0 and 3.6 which is the actual case) and now i am able to get rid of all these errors. But still i have one query regarding the values for I-V curves when it is in the Min or MAX corner. I asked about this in my previous mail. Lynne and Arpad gave some answers but that didnt solve my problem. The problem with MIN and MAX corner is , what is the voltage range we need to consider for MIN and MAX case . For example if we consider 3.3 V supply, the typical range would be -3.3 to 6.6 and this is the voltage range in the IBIS file for all 3 corners. As per the cookbook we need to consider voltage range -Vcc to +2Vcc and hence for the MIN case the range will be -3.0 to +6.0. So in that case what current values we need to put for the voltage range -3.3 to -3.0 and +6.0 to +6.6 whose values will be missing in MIN corner simulations. I hope i have explained the problem correctly and let me know your answers. Thanks & Regards Sudarshan On 10/18/07, Mirmak, Michael <michael.mirmak@intel.com <mailto:michael.mirmak@intel.com> > wrote: Sudarshan, Thanks for the message. The major issue appears to be problems in generating the Vcc-relative information, but some general supply issues are cropping up too. Assuming this is just a regular I/O buffer without internal terminations... 1) I would expect the Pullup I-V tables to pass through the zero V, zero I axis intercept. Yet they do not, with the max and min data shifted by ~0.3 V above and below 0 V, respectively. This suggests that the math used to generate the tables may be incorrect. Remember that, if the data at Vout is collected ground-relative, you can make the power clamp and pullup table data in Vcc-relative by the formula (Vtable_corner = Vcc_corner - Vout_corner), where xxx_corner refers to a value collected for typ, min or max. For example, if Vcc_min is 4.5 V, data collected ground-relative for 0.0 at the output would be entered in the table for the 4.5 V row. The supply voltages and the Pullup I-V axis intercepts (when plotted ground-relative) don't agree, which implies a problem with the supply listed for the [Voltage Range] keyword not matching either the real circuit or the values used to generate the Vcc-relative tables. 2) The voltage for the buffer is 5 V +/- 0.5, but the V-t fixture is 3.3 V +/- 0.3 V. This complicates the math (it gets very hard for me to calculate the intercepts if they don't match, at least before my first cup of coffee), but it also suggests that the buffer V-t and I-V data sets were collected using different settings or otherwise using different conditions. I would recommend checking the actual fixtures used for the V-t extraction; matching the fixture voltages to the voltage supply would make checking easier. Calculating the right I-V intercepts vs. V-t levels will be easier once these issues are addressed. - Michael Mirmak Intel Corp. Chair, EIA IBIS Open Forum _____ From: owner-ibis@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Sudarshan H N Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:16 AM To: ibis@server.eda.org; ibis-users@server.eda.org Subject: [IBIS] I-V and V-t curve mismatch Hello Experts, I am finding problem with one of my IBIS model in I-V and V-t curve mismatch. Please find the attached model for the refernence. ERROR - Model dummy: The [Rising Waveform] with [R_fixture]=80 Ohms and [V_fixture]=0V has TYP column DC endpoints of 0.01V and 2.66v, but an equivalent load applied to the model's I-V tables yields different voltages (-0.00V and 3.90V), a difference of 0.25% and 31.85%, respectively. I wrote a new tool to generate IBIS models and i am not able to make out where it is going wrong. I actually tried to manually calculate the currents at the points , that it has reported in the above error. As it is a rising waveform having a R_fixture to ground the current at 2.66v (steady state) would be 2.66v/50 = 33.25mA. I looked at the voltage corresponding to 33.25mA in pullup table and i found it is coming around 0.66v. There is a mismatch in the way i am caluculating also. But i observed a different voltage of 0.66v compared to what ibischk4 has reported i.e, 3.9v. Let me know is the way i am cross checking is correct or not ? If not let me know the exact procedure. Also let me know what might have been gone wrong in the curves. From the shape of the curves i am not seeing any problem with the way i have generated. Please let me know your answers as soon as possible. Note : Please dont consider any other values apart from the curves like Ramp , C_comp etc as i have dummy values for these place holders. Thanks & Regards Sudarshan -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner , and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------------------------------------------------------------- |For help or to subscribe/unsubscribe, e-mail majordomo@eda-stds.org |with the appropriate command message(s) in the body: | | help | subscribe ibis <optional e-mail address, if different> | subscribe ibis-users <optional e-mail address, if different> | unsubscribe ibis <optional e-mail address, if different> | unsubscribe ibis-users <optional e-mail address, if different> | |or e-mail a request to ibis-request@eda-stds.org. | |IBIS reflector archives exist under: | | http://www.eda-stds.org/pub/ibis/email_archive/ Recent | http://www.eda-stds.org/pub/ibis/users_archive/ Recent | http://www.eda-stds.org/pub/ibis/email/ E-mail since 1993Received on Tue Oct 23 12:27:37 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 23 2007 - 12:28:15 PDT