Monthly Archives: January 2018

IBIS-AMI: Using IBIS-AMI in COM Analysis

Posted on by
Reply

[This blog post is written in preparation for the presentation of the same title to be given at the 2018 DesignCon IBIS Summit. Presentation slides and audio recording are linked at the bottom of this post.]

Motivation:

An AMI model is in the binary form of .dll (dynamic link library) or .so (shared object). It itself is not an executable and can’t be used directly. To load or run the AMI models, one needs to have a “driver”. Commercial tools like HSpice has a license required utility called “AMICheck” to test drive the given AMI models with rise/fall/single bit response. We SPISim also provide a free utility called SPISimAMI.exe which does pretty much the same. These small drivers are good when you want to quickly check whether the AMI models at hand are “run-able”. However, to validate or test model’s full function, such a simple tester is often insufficient. In an ideal situation, a link analysis simulator, which will load Tx and Rx AMI models involved and perform calculation/optimization, is preferred as a driver. If a model developer can use IDE to attach to this simulator process and have access to the simulator codes as well, then he/she can set a break point within both simulator and the loaded AMI model to step through and debug during the whole analysis process.

Even if one doesn’t have access to simulator’s codes or debug build, theoretically, an IDE can also “attach” to a process before it loads the AMI dlls in which we have break points set (as a model builder, we have access to the model codes). However, thing is not so straight forward in real world. Most of the EDA tools I have seen allow user to interact different link analysis settings via GUI, then when a “simulate” button is clicked, a separated process is launched/forked and that process will do the work such as characterizing channel, loading AMI models and simulation etc before giving results back to the front-end GUI for further display. It is not easy (if even possible) to automatically attach dll files being debugged to these “spawn/forked” process. No to mention that if both Tx and Rx models are involved in a optimization process (such as back-channel), then simply stopping at a breaking point within one of the AMI models is not enough… one can’t observe and see the interactions for full picture. With these limitations, develop and testing AMI models within a full link analysis flow become challenging.

For a model developer who does not have access to these full link simulator’s sources, open source platform is a direction. There are several ones out there already… PyBert and COM are two such examples. From what I have seen, most of them already have some generic Tx/Rx algorithm blocks in place. So these EQ operating portions may be replaced to support AMI models to meet our needs. Being able to do so will shorten the model design cycle and enable the possibility to develop blocks with more advanced capabilities (such as back-channel communication). As PyBert already has some sort of AMI modeling support, this paper intends to explore possibilities to add similar capabilities in IEEE 802.3 spec. supported channel operating margin (COM) flow.

Background:

Channel Operating Margin (COM) is a ratified IEEE802.3 spec. Interested reader can find an overview slides given by the COM main author (also my former colleague at Intel) linked here: [Channel Operating Margin Tutorial] More detailed technical details are available in the IEEE 802.3BJ spec document and Richard’s 2013 DesignCon paper of same title. Further more, its matlab source codes are also available at the 802.3 website.

Given such technical depth like COM’s, to describe it in several paragraphs in this post will not be meaningful. So I will try to just give an overview from AMI builder’s perspective and help reader to see how AMI models can be plugged-in to the flow.

COM’s reference model is shown above. The upper half of the right side represent the through inter-symbol-interference (ISI) channel and the lower half is for the crosstalk (XTK), which can be near end, far end or both. Simply put, COM is an evaluation of signal to noise ratio for the full system. Most of the noise terms, such as mentioned ISI, XTK, jitters etc have all been taken into account. The signal part is the peak of the single bit response (SBR, i.e. pulse response). COM itself has published algorithms for many different blocks above and also interface specific default parameters for different 803.2 interfaces. EQ portion such as FFE in Tx, CTLE in Rx and even DFE are also implemented.

For a SERDES designer or AMI model builder, channel S-param (with or without package portion) is assumed given and COM flow will select best selection of FFE tap weights, CTLE pole/zero location and DFE tap weights as well. The searching flow for these parameters are exhaustive… full combination of FFE taps and CTLE dc gains are used to apply for toward the channel. A figure of merit (FOM) is then calculated for each combination. Best case is then decided based on the FOM value. Once EQ settings have been decided, then a SBR is formed and a full blown BER like analysis is applied with DFE involved to calculate final COM value.

For a link analysis flow, the first step is to “characterize” the channel, i.e. obtain impulse response. There are many devil’s details behind this step… single-ended s-param may be need to converted to mixed mode, package models of different sections needs to be cascaded, and finally the cascaded s-param needs to be “conditioned” before doing IFFT (not using an IBIS model or analog front-end in COM). All of these are important yet may be out of an AMI model builder’s direct concern… then just want this channel to “work”. Fortunately, these steps have all been included in COM flow already and can be used as they are.

Regarding Tx and Rx EQ, original COM implementation (circa. 2014) only supports one FFE pre-tap and one post-tap for TX. Recently, it have been extended to support two pre-tap and three post-taps. For CTLE, two poles and one zero equation is used and user can only sweep DC gain. The analysis flow is very similar to what’s described in IBIS spec section 10.2 but only with LTI assumption. That is, impulse response obtained from conditioned S-param is sent to Tx EQ, then pass through Rx CTLE before further processing. DFE taps are not optimized within each iteration of FOM calculation, it’s calculated only after optimized FFE + CTLE settings have been found.

As mentioned previously, the searching algorithm of these EQ is exhaustive. So if one open the published COM matlab codes, he/she will find the multi-level loops for different Tx EQ taps and Rx CTLE Gdc settings as shown above. To replace these generic EQ functions with our AMI models, codes need to be changed here.

Using AMI in COM flow:

To use AMI model in a COM flow, one need to replace collect the replace these FFE and CTLE calls in the COM codes with the corresponding AMI model invocation. Here shows two possible modifications routes:

  • LTI (Linear, time invariant) design: As COM flow use impulse response by default, it’s easier to plug-in LTI AMI model (i.e. models which don’t use AMI_GetWave to process data) directly.

The first step is to “combine” or “collapse” those multi-level loops into single loop. This single loop can be iteration which go through an array which contains all the AMI parameters combinations to be tried (may not be exhaustive) or has a “stopping-criteria” which will “break” the loop such as optimization within this single loop has reached solution. Tx and Rx may not be FFE/CTLE respectively or can have different format (for example, CTLE can iteration list of frequency response curves rather than pole/zero data). For the later case (optimization), Tx and RX can be calculated together if needed. original COM’s package length and DFE can still be used to calculate FOM of different condition if needed.

  • NLTV (Non-linear, Time variant) design: In this case, a PRBS like bit-pattern is needed first in order to convolve with the channel’s impulse response. Bit-stream response is then formed to feed into model’s AMI_GetWave function within each loop. Just like what’s described in IBIS’s spec, Tx and Rx’s GetWave functions are called sequentially and model’s DFE and FOM function (not COM’s) may be used at the end to decide when to finish the iteration.

  Regarding implementation details, as COM was originally written in matlab, so matlab’s corresponding mechanism to load and call external DLL functions need to be used to replace original FFE/CTLE function call. Basically (as shown in the right part of the picture above), mex -setup needs to be called to determine which IDE environment is installed in the working computer. A header file which include the definitions of the AMI API function is also needed. Then the following functions are called in sequence:

  • Load AMI model using: load(‘XXXXXX.dll’, ‘ami.h’)
  • check libisloaded(‘XXXXXX’) and list functions in the library using libfunctions(XXXXXX’)
  • Call AMI library function using calllib(‘XXXXXX.dll’, ‘ami_init’, htInput, rowSize…)
  • Finally unloadlibrary(‘XXXXXX’)

Also worth mentioned is that if we are doing this for AMI models being developed, not a generalized AMI-capable link simulator, then parser for .ami to form parameter tree is not necessarily needed to form argument passing into ami_init functions etc. We can form a string of parsed “key-value” pairs in advance manually and pass into AMI function. Other open platform like PyBert does have AMI parser built-in for its AMI capabilities.

Results:

In our experiment, we want to avoid the multi-level loops for all possible FFE tap weight combinations by using our AMI FFE model capable of self-optimization. The concept is simple: if we already have an channel’s impulse response, then the optimal weight to obtain same output as input (recover signal) in the minimum mean-squared error sense can be solved by using pseudo-inverse and linear algebra technique. We want to validate this approach work and can find similar (if not same) solution comparing to full exhaustive search.

Result is shown above. Red dot represents original COM’s sweeping results (FOM value). There are 13 Gdc values each with 24 one pre-tap and one-post tap combination possible… so total 312 run is needed. Blue dots are our AMI results… since we still use COM’s CTLE, so 13 run is performed. However, for each Gdc run, AMI model computes only once based on the self-optimization algorithm mentioned and finally report best results together with best CTLE Gdc. As seen that blue dots are almost at the top of all 13 original ” COM chunks”, we validate that this algorithm/our Optimization-capable FFE does work.

Summary:

To summarize this study, first we want to emphasize that for a model developer, who can be an individual model provider or a SERDES designer being asked to develop AMI models, a full flow capable of being used to debug AMI model being developed is needed. This can’t be covered by the simple utility driver particular when optimization such as back-channel come into play.

To meet our needs, open-source link-analysis platform is worth considering. In particular, COM flow of IEEE802.3 is attractive because it’s been ratified, well documented, widely used and support BER-like flow with source codes. While its Tx and Rx block functions may be generic, it’s not difficult to replace those function calls with our own AMI models’ API functions in either LTI or NLTV scenarios. This process not only help shortening model development cycles, but also is very beneficial in further understanding how link analysis is actually performed.

Links:

Presentation: [HERE] (http://www.spisim.com/support/paperetc/20180202_DesignConSummit_SPISim.pdf)

Audio recording (English): [HERE]

IBIS-AMI: “Paring-off” of the models in three scenarios

Posted on by
Reply

Here at SPISim, we provide AMI modeling service in addition to the developed EDA tools. Companies interested in AMI service are mostly IC/IP vendors. They need to provide AMI model in particular so that their user, system companies which use their ICs, can perform the design and analysis. Oftentimes, our client is only interested in AMI modeling for either Tx or Rx circuit because that’s where their IC design resides. However, they also often found later on that in many scenarios, it actually takes “two” models to be useful for their users. In this post, I will talk about some of such “paring-off” cases so that interested reader may be well informed when such modeling needs arise.

Tx and Rx:

The topology shown above is most commonly used for link analysis. At the Tx and Rx ends, user often is asked to specify corresponding IBIS models. Most definitely, they need to specify AMI model and associated AMI parameters. The interconnect in the middle is generalized here… it can be Tx package, main route, connector and Rx package etc represented in either separate models or cascaded S-parameter. The whole purpose of interconnect here is to provide an impulse response so that when link simulator is operating in either “Statistical” or “Bit-By-Bit” modes, AMI models at the Tx and Rx ends will be able to process accordingly. The analysis flow an AMI-compatible simulator should follow is described in details in section 10.2 of the IBIS spec. User should find that in those descriptions, and almost all the tutorial documents on-line such as the one below from KeySight, both Tx and Rx AMI models are both required to be part of the analysis.

Thus, the first “paring-off” in AMI modelings is each Tx needs an Rx AMI models to work… at least mostly. From this perspective, this is very different from traditional spice-based simulation, where you may have Tx/Rx part in either IBIS, transistor circuit or behavior/Verilog-A modeling format and can simulate without any issue.

So what if you have only either Tx or Rx AMI model? It will be tricky (depends on the simulator) if not possible in many cases. So we here at SPISim often have to provide a “dummy” AMI model in additional to the one ordered. As a “dummy” model, it is a simple pass-through without doing anything. When combined with pass-through S-param or interconnect, it will be very straight forward and clear to test and validate delivered AMI model’s performance. When all the spec. are met (e.g. EQ levels), then the user can add real interconnect and Tx/Rx AMI models from other vendors to proceed the design process.

(A pass-through “Dummy” AMI model implements AMI API but without any implementation body or just don’t change those variables passed by reference)

Repeater:

IBIS version 6.0 includes technical advances such as mid-channel repeaters documented in BIRD 156.3. Repeater is often used in longer SERDES channel such as PCIe or HDMI etc. There are two types of repeaters: redriver and retimer.

  • Redriver: A redriver performs signal conditioning through equalization, providing compensation for input channel loss from deterministic jitter such as inter-symbol interference.
  • Retimer: A retimer is a mixed-signal device that includes equalization functions plus a clock data recovery (CDR) function to compensate both deterministic and random jitter, and in turn transmit a clean signal downstream.

It’s easy to see the “paring” part within a repeater:

Within a repeater, Rx sits at the front to receive signals from upstream, then pass to Tx part of the repeater to transmit again toward the downstream. So one really can’t work without the other. Plus also “paired” Tx AMI at upstream and final Rx AMI at the end of the downstream, it takes at least four AMI models in most cases to start the analysis. More than one repeaters are also allowed so the number of “paired” AMIs can grow. The proper analysis sequence when repeater(s) is involved is also documented in 10.7 of the spec.

So far as repeater being an “electrical” component is concerned, there may be no such needs to probe signals between Rx and Tx within a repeater. However, when we model an optical link as a repeater (shown below from Agilent slides), then thing becomes much more interesting:

We handled such a case just recently… an optical transceiver used in an (electrical) system may be modeled as a repeater. Having that said, please note that in “optical” world, Tx is now again at the front of the repeater as laser is used to light the optical fiber to transmit signal toward Rx (now the 2nd part of the repeater). So a potential confusion may happen here when optical and electrical worlds meet. In addition, there might be two other considerations:

  1. There may be needs to probe signal between optical’s Tx and Rx ends, which can be single-ended-like (optical pulse in mili-watt)
  2. Users of such optical module based repeater may only focus on design at the upstream side, the downstream side or both. In the former two situations, they may not have AMI models at the other side.

The first one above is tricky to solve… mainly due to the non-differential nature of signals in a link simulator. Until now, if one reads the AMI portion of the IBIS spec, he/she should notice that the signal mentioned are always differential. So while there is no problem to create an AMI model handling single ended signals, how the probing/analysis goes really depends on simulator being used. Having that said, with DDR adopting AMI methodology, the single-ended signal support should happen very soon.

To accommodate needs of different possible users of our clients, we make use of the “pass-through” dummy model again and proposed the following different AMI models combinations:

In usage scenario 1: The modeled Tx and Rx optical ends (each have their own circuitry) are assembled accordingly. Thus if a simulator can handle “single-ended-like” optical signal in between, then this model can be used directly.

In usage scenario 2: The signal between optical ends within a redriver is not of concern and the support of single-ended-like signal is uncertain. In this case, we “lumped” the TxRx together and put it at the front of the redriver. The second half of the redriver is a simple pass-through. As input and output from the first part are always differential, it will meet the expectation of the simulation flow documented in the spec.

In usage scenario 3: we assume the user is only interested in the downstream end and have only Rx AMI model. In such a case, a repeater will not work because it’s lack of the up-stream. So we combined the created TxRx here and make it a transmitter AMI.

In usage scenario 4: we assume the user is only interested in the upstream portion and only have Tx model. Similar to scenario 3, we combine the TxRx of the optical models and make it a receiver AMI.

In the “paring-off” for a repeater, there are two points worth mentioning:

  • Unless DFE/CDR are being modeled and thus retimer, distinction between Tx and Rx EQ are often blur particular when they both are LTI. For example, either Tx or Rx can have a FFE EQ and CTLE of a Rx is also just a passive filter. In such case, a model can be used as either a Tx or Rx (like scenario 3 and 4). The only thing needs to pay attention to is the jitters assignment as AMI parameters for Tx and Rx’s jitters are different.
  • We want to cover all usage scenarios and make our client happy. However, we also don’t want to over burden SPISim engineers too much in creating too many different AMI models. Thus as mentioned in previous post, the architecture of AMI modeling becomes important. When done properly.. (such as in our cases 🙂 ), we can simply cascade stages easily at the .ami file level without even rewriting C/C++ codes or any re-compilation.

IBIS-AMI and IBIS:

When we focus on more technically challenging AMI models, we often forgot still important role a traditional IBIS model will play in link analysis. Simply put, the accuracy of an IBIS model still impacts the final results (e.g. BER eye) greatly.

The normal process of the link analysis starts with “link characterization”. Mostly this involves a time domain simulation of driver driving through interconnect with receiver analog front-end (no EQ) connected to obtain the pad to pad step response. Then this step response is differentiated to obtain the impulse response. Finally AMI models are brought into play by convolving with impulse response (LTI or statistics mode) or processing with bit response sequence (NLTV or bit-by-bit mode). In this characterization stage, no EQ (i.e. no AMI) is involved. It’s is their “analog front-end”, i,.e. IBIS models or corresponding spice/behavioral models being used. Thus, the accurate modeling of this portion does impact the processed link analysis results.

In the picture above, eye plots of identical AMI model yet each with different IBIS models are shown. It’ clearly seen how IBIS’s VT waveform and IV curves affect the eye openings width and height. Thus the third scenarios we want to emphasis of IBIS/AMI “paring-off” is the AMI model and their corresponding IBIS model.

SPISim is a relative small EDA/consulting company comparing to others such as Agilent, Cadence or Mathsoft (matlab). These companies each have their own AMI modeling solutions and cost much much higher when comparing to our offerings. However, when we look into their AMI product details, it’s not easy for us to find (or maybe even not there?) how the IBIS portion will be handled. As an AMI model is mostly used for SERDES application, differential or current-mode-logic (CML) design is often involved. If one reads chapter 4 of IBIS cookbook carefully (available at the IBIS website), he/she should find that the process of differential IBIS modeling is more complicated than the simple single-ended IBIS buffer. Thus when considering the importance of “paring” between AMI and IBIS, one should really take this into account. An AMI model without proper analog front end will definitely come back to haunt you during validation stage. Interested reader regarding differential IBIS modeling may also refer to our previous post or our 2016 Asian IBIS summit paper.