FPGA Central - World's 1st FPGA / CPLD Portal

FPGA Central

World's 1st FPGA Portal

 

Go Back   FPGA Groups > NewsGroup > FPGA

FPGA comp.arch.fpga newsgroup (usenet)

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2004, 09:32 AM
prav
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default negative hold time

What is negative hold time and what does it specify physically?

Thanks in advance

rgds,
prav
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2004, 10:26 AM
Muzaffer Kal
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time

On 10 Feb 2004 01:32:42 -0800, [email protected] (prav) wrote:

>What is negative hold time and what does it specify physically?


Hold is, as you might know, how long data needs to be stable after the
edge of the clock. There is nothing tricky about a negative hold value
which suggests electrons going back in time. It just means that
internally to the flop, the data has much more delay to the sampler
than the clock. If you think about how you fix a hold violation, it
becomes clearer: you add a delay to the data input of the flop. A flop
with negative hold requirement has some delay added to the data path
already.

Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2004, 12:59 PM
Charles B. Cameron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time



Muzaffer Kal wrote:

> On 10 Feb 2004 01:32:42 -0800, [email protected] (prav) wrote:
>
>
>>What is negative hold time and what does it specify physically?

>
>
> Hold is, as you might know, how long data needs to be stable after the
> edge of the clock. There is nothing tricky about a negative hold value
> which suggests electrons going back in time. It just means that
> internally to the flop, the data has much more delay to the sampler
> than the clock. If you think about how you fix a hold violation, it
> becomes clearer: you add a delay to the data input of the flop. A flop
> with negative hold requirement has some delay added to the data path
> already.
>

In case it's not obvious, the implication of this is that the input signal can change _before_ the flip-flop is clocked. The difference in time between doing this and receiving the clock is the same as the magnitude of the negative hold time.

Charles B. Cameron

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2004, 06:12 PM
Peter Alfke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time

Let me blame T.I. for inventing (in the late 'sixties) the stupid name
"Hold Time", when we are really talking about the latest possible
instant of Set-Up Time.

Any D-flip-flop has an extremely tiny timing window (femtoseconds wide),
where it takes a snapshot of the D-input and generates either Q or Qbar.
The exact position (in time) of this tiny window with respect to the
clock edge is a function of processing, temperature and Vcc.

The earliest possible position is specified as Set-up-time. The latest
possible position is (unfortunarely) specified as Positive Hold Time if
it is later than the clock edge, and as Negative Hold Time if it is
before the clock edge.

It would be so much nicer if we used only one parameter name, and called
the two extremes the max and the min value of the set-up time. I lost
that battle 30 years ago. It still smarts every time I hear "Hold Time"
.. :-(

Peter Alfke
=======================
"Charles B. Cameron" wrote:
>
> Muzaffer Kal wrote:
>
> > On 10 Feb 2004 01:32:42 -0800, [email protected] (prav) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What is negative hold time and what does it specify physically?

> >
> >
> > Hold is, as you might know, how long data needs to be stable after the
> > edge of the clock. There is nothing tricky about a negative hold value
> > which suggests electrons going back in time. It just means that
> > internally to the flop, the data has much more delay to the sampler
> > than the clock. If you think about how you fix a hold violation, it
> > becomes clearer: you add a delay to the data input of the flop. A flop
> > with negative hold requirement has some delay added to the data path
> > already.
> >

> In case it's not obvious, the implication of this is that the input signal can change _before_ the flip-flop is clocked. The difference in time between doing this and receiving the clock is the same as the magnitude of the negative hold time.
>
> Charles B. Cameron

Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2004, 08:54 AM
Rudolf Usselmann
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time

Peter Alfke wrote:

> Let me blame T.I. for inventing (in the late 'sixties) the stupid name
> "Hold Time", when we are really talking about the latest possible
> instant of Set-Up Time.


Really ?!

And I thought the Window between Setup and Hold is where the
input signal is NOT supposed to change (e.g. remain stable) !

> Any D-flip-flop has an extremely tiny timing window (femtoseconds wide),
> where it takes a snapshot of the D-input and generates either Q or Qbar.
> The exact position (in time) of this tiny window with respect to the
> clock edge is a function of processing, temperature and Vcc.


Depending on the clock transition time the window can be larger
or smaller (and is also of course process dependent).

Hmm, all flops I have seen generate both Q and Qbar.

> The earliest possible position is specified as Set-up-time. The latest
> possible position is (unfortunarely) specified as Positive Hold Time if
> it is later than the clock edge, and as Negative Hold Time if it is
> before the clock edge.


Actually the latest possible change of the data is
Setup time, and the earlist possible change is Hold Time.

> It would be so much nicer if we used only one parameter name, and called
> the two extremes the max and the min value of the set-up time. I lost
> that battle 30 years ago. It still smarts every time I hear "Hold Time"
> . :-(
>
> Peter Alfke



rudi
================================================== ======
ASICS.ws ::: Solutions for your ASIC/FPGA needs :::
...............::: FPGAs * Full Custom ICs * IP Cores :::
FREE IP Cores -> http://www.asics.ws/ <- FREE EDA Tools
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2004, 03:55 PM
Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time

Rudi,

Yawn.......

Bob


"Rudolf Usselmann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Alfke wrote:
>
> > Let me blame T.I. for inventing (in the late 'sixties) the stupid name
> > "Hold Time", when we are really talking about the latest possible
> > instant of Set-Up Time.

>
> Really ?!
>
> And I thought the Window between Setup and Hold is where the
> input signal is NOT supposed to change (e.g. remain stable) !
>
> > Any D-flip-flop has an extremely tiny timing window (femtoseconds wide),
> > where it takes a snapshot of the D-input and generates either Q or Qbar.
> > The exact position (in time) of this tiny window with respect to the
> > clock edge is a function of processing, temperature and Vcc.

>
> Depending on the clock transition time the window can be larger
> or smaller (and is also of course process dependent).
>
> Hmm, all flops I have seen generate both Q and Qbar.
>
> > The earliest possible position is specified as Set-up-time. The latest
> > possible position is (unfortunarely) specified as Positive Hold Time if
> > it is later than the clock edge, and as Negative Hold Time if it is
> > before the clock edge.

>
> Actually the latest possible change of the data is
> Setup time, and the earlist possible change is Hold Time.
>
> > It would be so much nicer if we used only one parameter name, and called
> > the two extremes the max and the min value of the set-up time. I lost
> > that battle 30 years ago. It still smarts every time I hear "Hold Time"
> > . :-(
> >
> > Peter Alfke

>
>
> rudi
> ================================================== ======
> ASICS.ws ::: Solutions for your ASIC/FPGA needs :::
> ..............::: FPGAs * Full Custom ICs * IP Cores :::
> FREE IP Cores -> http://www.asics.ws/ <- FREE EDA Tools



Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2004, 05:34 PM
Peter Alfke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time

Besides some meaningless semantic quibbling, Rudi's answer indicated
basic conceptual differences.
A component data sheet should have a component-centric view: The
flip-flop has a window in time during which the D-input must be stable,
to guarantee predictable operation. This window has an early edge
(commonly called set-up time, often specified as a min, but I would call
it a max), and it has a late edge (commonly called positive hold time
when it is later than the clock edge, negative hold time when it is
before the clock edge. I would like to call it the min set-up time, but
it's too late to bring sanity to this issue).

Whether something is a min or a max depends on your perspective.
With a bridge over a highway, the "14 feet" specification is a min for
the bridge builder, but a max for the truck driver...

Much of this is semantics, but semantics can interfere with
understanding, sometimes.
Peter Alfke


Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
>
> Peter Alfke wrote:
>
> > Let me blame T.I. for inventing (in the late 'sixties) the stupid name
> > "Hold Time", when we are really talking about the latest possible
> > instant of Set-Up Time.

>
> Really ?!
>
> And I thought the Window between Setup and Hold is where the
> input signal is NOT supposed to change (e.g. remain stable) !
>
> > Any D-flip-flop has an extremely tiny timing window (femtoseconds wide),
> > where it takes a snapshot of the D-input and generates either Q or Qbar.
> > The exact position (in time) of this tiny window with respect to the
> > clock edge is a function of processing, temperature and Vcc.

>
> Depending on the clock transition time the window can be larger
> or smaller (and is also of course process dependent).
>
> Hmm, all flops I have seen generate both Q and Qbar.
>
> > The earliest possible position is specified as Set-up-time. The latest
> > possible position is (unfortunarely) specified as Positive Hold Time if
> > it is later than the clock edge, and as Negative Hold Time if it is
> > before the clock edge.

>
> Actually the latest possible change of the data is
> Setup time, and the earlist possible change is Hold Time.
>
> > It would be so much nicer if we used only one parameter name, and called
> > the two extremes the max and the min value of the set-up time. I lost
> > that battle 30 years ago. It still smarts every time I hear "Hold Time"
> > . :-(
> >
> > Peter Alfke

>
> rudi
> ================================================== ======
> ASICS.ws ::: Solutions for your ASIC/FPGA needs :::
> ..............::: FPGAs * Full Custom ICs * IP Cores :::
> FREE IP Cores -> http://www.asics.ws/ <- FREE EDA Tools

Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2004, 08:05 PM
rickman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time

Peter Alfke wrote:
>
> Besides some meaningless semantic quibbling, Rudi's answer indicated
> basic conceptual differences.
> A component data sheet should have a component-centric view: The
> flip-flop has a window in time during which the D-input must be stable,
> to guarantee predictable operation. This window has an early edge
> (commonly called set-up time, often specified as a min, but I would call
> it a max), and it has a late edge (commonly called positive hold time
> when it is later than the clock edge, negative hold time when it is
> before the clock edge. I would like to call it the min set-up time, but
> it's too late to bring sanity to this issue).
>
> Whether something is a min or a max depends on your perspective.
> With a bridge over a highway, the "14 feet" specification is a min for
> the bridge builder, but a max for the truck driver...
>
> Much of this is semantics, but semantics can interfere with
> understanding, sometimes.
> Peter Alfke


I don't know if any further comment is warrented or valuable, but I am
waiting for a download and thought I would post my 2 cents worth.

I agree that the data sheet should be "component" centric. But this is
normally done in terms of the interface. The internal sampling of the
data input is what is going on, but that is not relevant given occam's
razor. All the user needs to know is to maintain the data input stable
during a timing window. Using one set of terms vs. the other does not
make the mechanics more clear in my point of view.

I agree that the basis of this timing window is not clearly understood
by many engineers. The way to improve the understanding is to have the
data sheets (or app notes) clearly explain the basis for the window (and
how it is measured) rather than just leaving it up to the engineer to
try to figure out what the data sheet writer is trying to spec. I often
have trouble figuring out just what a spec is trying to say. Perhaps a
JEDEC, EIA or other standards body could help by defining measurement
terms, what they are measuring and how they are measured?

I especially find it interesting (not in a good way) when the spec I am
looking for is not in a data sheet, but instead a similar one is given
in its place. For example, when I am looking for max static current
draw over temperature and I am given a typical current at 25C. What is
the designer trying to tell me?

--

Rick "rickman" Collins

[email protected]
Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
removed.

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design URL http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave 301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110 301-682-7666 FAX
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2004, 09:37 PM
Peter Alfke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time


rickman wrote:
> For example, when I am looking for max static current
> draw over temperature and I am given a typical current at 25C. What is
> the designer trying to tell me?


Here is an explanation for that typical number:
In the olden days, static current was extremely low, microamps or a few
milliamps, and was usually swamped out by the dynamic power consumption.

So the argument went this way:
If the part is hot because it is working hard, running with a fast
clock, nobody really cares about the leakage current. Even if it's
higher than the room temp spec, it is still an insignificant part of the
total current that made the chip get so hot.

When the part is not working hard, it will be near room temperature, and
because of the lack of dynamic power, the static current is a standby
value, and may be important. And everybody knows that leakage current
doubles for every 10 degree C increase in temperature. (The newly
increased leakage current is actually rising less dramatically).

With the recent dramatic increase in leakage current (by orders of
magnitude), that old reasoning may have to be revised...

Peter Alfke
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2004, 11:22 PM
Jim Granville
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time (Typ/max)

Peter Alfke wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>
>> For example, when I am looking for max static current
>>draw over temperature and I am given a typical current at 25C. What is
>>the designer trying to tell me?

>
>
> Here is an explanation for that typical number:
> In the olden days, static current was extremely low, microamps or a few
> milliamps, and was usually swamped out by the dynamic power consumption.
>
> So the argument went this way:
> If the part is hot because it is working hard, running with a fast
> clock, nobody really cares about the leakage current. Even if it's
> higher than the room temp spec, it is still an insignificant part of the
> total current that made the chip get so hot.
>
> When the part is not working hard, it will be near room temperature, and
> because of the lack of dynamic power, the static current is a standby
> value, and may be important. And everybody knows that leakage current
> doubles for every 10 degree C increase in temperature. (The newly
> increased leakage current is actually rising less dramatically).
>
> With the recent dramatic increase in leakage current (by orders of
> magnitude), that old reasoning may have to be revised...


.... and designs need to consider complete power removal of those hungry
devices during sleep times, which moves away from a single chip solution..

>
> Peter Alfke


I think rickman was asking about TYP vs MAX ?
Typical appears on a data sheet for many reasons :
- It's a better sounding number (don't laugh..)
- It's easier/quicker to derive than a MAX corner value.
- It's also usefull for average battery life calculations.

but sometimes, customers want to know worst case battery life,
and they may even be using batteries good enough to spec that over
temperature. So they need a corresponding chip value.

If the spec omits MAX, the designer could be trying to say
any or all of :
- The silicon is so new, we don't know this number yet
- Our test coverage could not guarantee this on all devices
- We do not bother to test it
- A few devices have this very high, and we are unsure why
- Why does that number matter again ?

The new Lattice 4000 family, and Xilinx Coolrunner II do seem
to have good Typ, and Max static Icc specs, so perhaps
those customers are more demanding ?

Personally, I prefer to see Icc vs Temp plots, and in the old
days of data sheets, they would plot Typ and Max on the same graph!


-jg



Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2004, 11:47 PM
rickman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time

Peter Alfke wrote:
>
> rickman wrote:
> > For example, when I am looking for max static current
> > draw over temperature and I am given a typical current at 25C. What is
> > the designer trying to tell me?

>
> Here is an explanation for that typical number:
> In the olden days, static current was extremely low, microamps or a few
> milliamps, and was usually swamped out by the dynamic power consumption.
>
> So the argument went this way:
> If the part is hot because it is working hard, running with a fast
> clock, nobody really cares about the leakage current. Even if it's
> higher than the room temp spec, it is still an insignificant part of the
> total current that made the chip get so hot.
>
> When the part is not working hard, it will be near room temperature, and
> because of the lack of dynamic power, the static current is a standby
> value, and may be important. And everybody knows that leakage current
> doubles for every 10 degree C increase in temperature. (The newly
> increased leakage current is actually rising less dramatically).
>
> With the recent dramatic increase in leakage current (by orders of
> magnitude), that old reasoning may have to be revised...
>
> Peter Alfke



Uh, what if "room temp" is 85C? That is a valid operating spec for many
chips, right?

That was just one example I could think of off the top of my head.
There are lots of timing related specs or even functional specs that are
just not clear in many data sheets. I think that often these specs
reflect how the parts are tested, without thorough consideration of how
they are used.

--

Rick "rickman" Collins

[email protected]
Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
removed.

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design URL http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave 301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110 301-682-7666 FAX
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2004, 11:56 PM
rickman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time (Typ/max)

Jim Granville wrote:
>
> Peter Alfke wrote:
> > rickman wrote:
> >
> >> For example, when I am looking for max static current
> >>draw over temperature and I am given a typical current at 25C. What is
> >>the designer trying to tell me?

> >
> >
> > Here is an explanation for that typical number:
> > In the olden days, static current was extremely low, microamps or a few
> > milliamps, and was usually swamped out by the dynamic power consumption.
> >
> > So the argument went this way:
> > If the part is hot because it is working hard, running with a fast
> > clock, nobody really cares about the leakage current. Even if it's
> > higher than the room temp spec, it is still an insignificant part of the
> > total current that made the chip get so hot.
> >
> > When the part is not working hard, it will be near room temperature, and
> > because of the lack of dynamic power, the static current is a standby
> > value, and may be important. And everybody knows that leakage current
> > doubles for every 10 degree C increase in temperature. (The newly
> > increased leakage current is actually rising less dramatically).
> >
> > With the recent dramatic increase in leakage current (by orders of
> > magnitude), that old reasoning may have to be revised...

>
> ... and designs need to consider complete power removal of those hungry
> devices during sleep times, which moves away from a single chip solution..
>
> >
> > Peter Alfke

>
> I think rickman was asking about TYP vs MAX ?
> Typical appears on a data sheet for many reasons :
> - It's a better sounding number (don't laugh..)
> - It's easier/quicker to derive than a MAX corner value.
> - It's also usefull for average battery life calculations.


No, I was not asking about just the difference between TYP and MAX, my
issue is TYP at 25C vs. anything at full temp range. Static current
normally goes *way* up as you approach 85C and gets serious as you get
near 125C on automotive temp parts. Try specing the max life of a
battery powered RTC over a temp range of -40C to 125C.


> but sometimes, customers want to know worst case battery life,
> and they may even be using batteries good enough to spec that over
> temperature. So they need a corresponding chip value.
>
> If the spec omits MAX, the designer could be trying to say
> any or all of :
> - The silicon is so new, we don't know this number yet


Normally they give a footnote about this saying this is "preliminary"
and will be filled out later.

> - Our test coverage could not guarantee this on all devices


This is also normally stated when true.


> - We do not bother to test it


Same as above.

> - A few devices have this very high, and we are unsure why


Now we are getting to my concern.

> - Why does that number matter again ?


If they are saying that, then I need a new supplier.


> The new Lattice 4000 family, and Xilinx Coolrunner II do seem
> to have good Typ, and Max static Icc specs, so perhaps
> those customers are more demanding ?
>
> Personally, I prefer to see Icc vs Temp plots, and in the old
> days of data sheets, they would plot Typ and Max on the same graph!


This was just one example of poorly spec'd data. I have also seen poor
specs in timing and functionality.

--

Rick "rickman" Collins

[email protected]
Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
removed.

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design URL http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave 301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110 301-682-7666 FAX
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2004, 12:17 AM
Peter Alfke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time (Typ/max)

There is another aspect:
When we spec the max value, we have to guarantee it. That can hurt when
one of a thousand pins has a leakage current of 11 uA. It feels bad to
throw away a multi-$100 part for that reason especially when it is in
short supply.
On the other hand, a 10 uA per pin spec looked silly on the XC3000L,
where the max Icc was spec'ed as 50 uA. We solved this by connecting all
pins together in the tester, and still guaranteeing 10 uA total for all
of them together. Some specifications have a very wide margin, but it
is expensive to measure extremely low currents. That's where "typical" helps...

I was pointing out that high junction temperature and a tight leakage
current spec hardly ever are meaningful together.
Peter Alfke

Jim Granville wrote:
>
> Peter Alfke wrote:
> > rickman wrote:
> >
> >> For example, when I am looking for max static current
> >>draw over temperature and I am given a typical current at 25C. What is
> >>the designer trying to tell me?

> >
> >
> > Here is an explanation for that typical number:
> > In the olden days, static current was extremely low, microamps or a few
> > milliamps, and was usually swamped out by the dynamic power consumption.
> >
> > So the argument went this way:
> > If the part is hot because it is working hard, running with a fast
> > clock, nobody really cares about the leakage current. Even if it's
> > higher than the room temp spec, it is still an insignificant part of the
> > total current that made the chip get so hot.
> >
> > When the part is not working hard, it will be near room temperature, and
> > because of the lack of dynamic power, the static current is a standby
> > value, and may be important. And everybody knows that leakage current
> > doubles for every 10 degree C increase in temperature. (The newly
> > increased leakage current is actually rising less dramatically).
> >
> > With the recent dramatic increase in leakage current (by orders of
> > magnitude), that old reasoning may have to be revised...

>
> ... and designs need to consider complete power removal of those hungry
> devices during sleep times, which moves away from a single chip solution..
>
> >
> > Peter Alfke

>
> I think rickman was asking about TYP vs MAX ?
> Typical appears on a data sheet for many reasons :
> - It's a better sounding number (don't laugh..)
> - It's easier/quicker to derive than a MAX corner value.
> - It's also usefull for average battery life calculations.
>
> but sometimes, customers want to know worst case battery life,
> and they may even be using batteries good enough to spec that over
> temperature. So they need a corresponding chip value.
>
> If the spec omits MAX, the designer could be trying to say
> any or all of :
> - The silicon is so new, we don't know this number yet
> - Our test coverage could not guarantee this on all devices
> - We do not bother to test it
> - A few devices have this very high, and we are unsure why
> - Why does that number matter again ?
>
> The new Lattice 4000 family, and Xilinx Coolrunner II do seem
> to have good Typ, and Max static Icc specs, so perhaps
> those customers are more demanding ?
>
> Personally, I prefer to see Icc vs Temp plots, and in the old
> days of data sheets, they would plot Typ and Max on the same graph!
>
> -jg

Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2004, 01:05 AM
Jim Granville
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time (Typ/max)

Peter Alfke wrote:
> There is another aspect:
> When we spec the max value, we have to guarantee it. That can hurt when
> one of a thousand pins has a leakage current of 11 uA. It feels bad to
> throw away a multi-$100 part for that reason especially when it is in
> short supply.
> On the other hand, a 10 uA per pin spec looked silly on the XC3000L,
> where the max Icc was spec'ed as 50 uA. We solved this by connecting all
> pins together in the tester, and still guaranteeing 10 uA total for all
> of them together.


Sounds a good solution..

> Some specifications have a very wide margin, but it
> is expensive to measure extremely low currents. That's where "typical" helps...
>
> I was pointing out that high junction temperature and a tight leakage
> current spec hardly ever are meaningful together.
> Peter Alfke


It depends on the process, and device.
Here are some real numbers, as an example (appologies for the brand)

ispMACH 4032Z
ICC Standby Power Supply Current
TYP MAX
Vcc = 1.8V, TA = 25°C 10 - µA
Vcc = 1.9V, TA = 70°C 13 20 µA
Vcc = 1.9V, TA = 85°C 15 25 µA
Vcc = 1.9V, TA = 125°C 22 - µA

My Comments :
These are micro-amp figures, so are in the region of
what was considered classic leakage, but they are a little
better behaved - not log related.

Here, Iq only climbs slowly with temp,
and the ratio or margin of MAX:TYP is relatively low.
( under 2:1 )

That means either the process control is very good, or
that there is a yield hit in meeting the MAX corner.

To me this is (unusually) well spec'd. One can see a
room temp/average Vcc value, for nominal calculations,
and one can also see a choice of upper corner values,
that show both the temp/Vcc effect alone, and
also the process corner effect.

-jg


Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2004, 08:28 AM
glen herrmannsfeldt
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time

Peter Alfke wrote:

> Let me blame T.I. for inventing (in the late 'sixties) the stupid name
> "Hold Time", when we are really talking about the latest possible
> instant of Set-Up Time.


(snip)

> The earliest possible position is specified as Set-up-time. The latest
> possible position is (unfortunarely) specified as Positive Hold Time if
> it is later than the clock edge, and as Negative Hold Time if it is
> before the clock edge.


> It would be so much nicer if we used only one parameter name, and called
> the two extremes the max and the min value of the set-up time. I lost
> that battle 30 years ago. It still smarts every time I hear "Hold Time"


By having two parameters you can have a typical for both, and also
a max/min (whichever is applicable).

Now, I suppose the names could be more symmetric. What is the opposite
of setup? Maybe takedown, or something like that? Maybe release is
the opposite of hold. I don't think setup/takedown or release/hold make
very good pairs. It might be that I am too used to setup/hold by now.

-- glen

Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2004, 05:40 PM
Peter Alfke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time

Glen, I have no problem with names, but I have a problem giving one
single parameter two different names. There is no inherent difference
between set-up and hold, they are just the two extreme ends of the same
parameter, the input timing window where D must be held constant, in
order to guarantee specified operation and performance.
At any one time, voltage, and temperature on a given part, the "two
parameters" collapse into a single value. I have measured the actual
width of the window (in Virtex-II Pro) as 0.03 femtoseconds. (see
TechXclusives on metastability measurement).

I am a stickler for clarity and simplicity, but this is a battle lost
long time ago...
Peter Alfke
=========================
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>
> Peter Alfke wrote:
>
> > Let me blame T.I. for inventing (in the late 'sixties) the stupid name
> > "Hold Time", when we are really talking about the latest possible
> > instant of Set-Up Time.

>
> (snip)
>
> > The earliest possible position is specified as Set-up-time. The latest
> > possible position is (unfortunarely) specified as Positive Hold Time if
> > it is later than the clock edge, and as Negative Hold Time if it is
> > before the clock edge.

>
> > It would be so much nicer if we used only one parameter name, and called
> > the two extremes the max and the min value of the set-up time. I lost
> > that battle 30 years ago. It still smarts every time I hear "Hold Time"

>
> By having two parameters you can have a typical for both, and also
> a max/min (whichever is applicable).
>
> Now, I suppose the names could be more symmetric. What is the opposite
> of setup? Maybe takedown, or something like that? Maybe release is
> the opposite of hold. I don't think setup/takedown or release/hold make
> very good pairs. It might be that I am too used to setup/hold by now.
>
> -- glen

Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2004, 09:05 PM
Jim Granville
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time

Peter Alfke wrote:
> Glen, I have no problem with names, but I have a problem giving one
> single parameter two different names. There is no inherent difference
> between set-up and hold, they are just the two extreme ends of the same
> parameter, the input timing window where D must be held constant, in
> order to guarantee specified operation and performance.
> At any one time, voltage, and temperature on a given part, the "two
> parameters" collapse into a single value. I have measured the actual
> width of the window (in Virtex-II Pro) as 0.03 femtoseconds. (see
> TechXclusives on metastability measurement).


My preference is for the term Time Aperture. That makes it clear it
is narrow, and requires either leading and trailing numbers, or
a centre point, and a width would also be valid.
The concept of Aperture then also naturally leads onto adding Jitter
on the clock, or data to any design margins.
A centre point and width spec would more naturally align
with Jitter values.

It also leads to Aperture skew, which is the miss-match in these
windows across multiple flip flops in a device. Not good if you
are crossing clock domains.
These can be much wider than the metastable aperture.

Then there is the metastable aperture (modeled) you mention above.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the 0.03fs is the actual width of the
aperture. The 0.03 is derived by extrapolate from a log eqn fit,
and has units of fs.

Any attempt to measure the aperture would be swamped in jitter,
as best in class jitter is 'some picoseconds', rather than
'sub-picoseconds'.
A one volt signal with 1ns risetime, has 1mv/ps, so system
noise (gnd/vcc/crosstalk) in the order of 1mv will create in
the region of 1ps of jitter. 100ps rise, with 1% system noise
also gives 1ps jitter.

I can think of a method where you might get close to getting a
physical aperture width value, but it would need a test chip, rather
than std devices.

-jg

Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2004, 10:06 PM
Peter Alfke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: negative hold time

Jim, I agree 100% with your posting. Aperture would be a very good name.
But it looks like we are 40 years too late. It might be politicaly
incorrect to say nasty things about Texans...
Cheers
Peter
==========
Jim Granville wrote:
>
> Peter Alfke wrote:
> > Glen, I have no problem with names, but I have a problem giving one
> > single parameter two different names. There is no inherent difference
> > between set-up and hold, they are just the two extreme ends of the same
> > parameter, the input timing window where D must be held constant, in
> > order to guarantee specified operation and performance.
> > At any one time, voltage, and temperature on a given part, the "two
> > parameters" collapse into a single value. I have measured the actual
> > width of the window (in Virtex-II Pro) as 0.03 femtoseconds. (see
> > TechXclusives on metastability measurement).

>
> My preference is for the term Time Aperture. That makes it clear it
> is narrow, and requires either leading and trailing numbers, or
> a centre point, and a width would also be valid.
> The concept of Aperture then also naturally leads onto adding Jitter
> on the clock, or data to any design margins.
> A centre point and width spec would more naturally align
> with Jitter values.
>
> It also leads to Aperture skew, which is the miss-match in these
> windows across multiple flip flops in a device. Not good if you
> are crossing clock domains.
> These can be much wider than the metastable aperture.
>
> Then there is the metastable aperture (modeled) you mention above.
>
> I'm not sure I'd agree that the 0.03fs is the actual width of the
> aperture. The 0.03 is derived by extrapolate from a log eqn fit,
> and has units of fs.
>
> Any attempt to measure the aperture would be swamped in jitter,
> as best in class jitter is 'some picoseconds', rather than
> 'sub-picoseconds'.
> A one volt signal with 1ns risetime, has 1mv/ps, so system
> noise (gnd/vcc/crosstalk) in the order of 1mv will create in
> the region of 1ps of jitter. 100ps rise, with 1% system noise
> also gives 1ps jitter.
>
> I can think of a method where you might get close to getting a
> physical aperture width value, but it would need a test chip, rather
> than std devices.
>
> -jg

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
negative hold time skyworld Verilog 6 06-01-2006 01:41 PM
Pad-to-pad hold time Robert FPGA 1 08-11-2003 06:54 PM
Re: Negative hold times in verilog Uma Polisetti Verilog 0 07-29-2003 03:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Copyright 2008 @ FPGA Central. All rights reserved