• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 101 subscribers
  • Views 164 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

TMS320C6711D: Driver difference vs IBIS model difference between rev D and rev B?

Dale Blankenship1
Prodigy 60 points
Part Number: TMS320C6711D

We are replacing the obsolete TMS320C6711BGNA100 with the TMS320C6711DGDPA167. Should we expect much of a change in the output drivers (strength, edge rate, etc) or are they very similar? I'm specifically looking at the address and data pins for external memory.

Some years ago, we received an IBIS file, tms320c6711b.ibs, attached, which was used in the original design for signal integrity modeling. Now there is a new IBIS file, sprm145.ibs, also attached, for the '6711D. These two files behave very differently, although the newer file seems to better match what we measure on our PWB with the old rev B part. The old IBIS file lacks the "Rising Waveform" and "Falling Waveform" tables of the new file, and also has much faster "Ramp" values. 

My question is, are the actual drivers more nearly alike (between rev B and rev D), and we should expect similar signal integrity; or are they really as different as the IBIS files imply?

sprm145.ibstms320c6711b.ibs

  • 0
    TI__Guru** 124008 points

    Hello Dale Blankenship1, 

    Thank you for checking.

    Can you please confirm if you have reviewed the errata for the changes between the device version that you could use.

    https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/sprz173

    I assume the current model you used is the one downloaded from TI.com.

    Was the tms320c6711b.ibs file provided by TI trough an FAE or this was downloaded from TI.

    Let me check if there some information  i can find  that you could use. Alternatively i would recommend considering the model on TI.com to be matching the device.

    Please expect a delay as i work to reach out to he teams internally.

    Regards,

    Sreenivasa

  • 0 in reply to Kallikuppa Sreenivasa
    TI__Guru** 124008 points

    Hello Dale Blankenship1, 

    Below if the [Notes] from Revision History if this helps.
    | 0.4 Updated CLKOUT3 buffer to reflect silicon revision 2.0
    | for C6711C GDP device.

    Regards,

    Sreenivasa

  • 0 in reply to Kallikuppa Sreenivasa
    Prodigy 60 points

    Hi Sreenivasa,

    Thank you for the errata, I reviewed it but didn't see any issues related to this. Yes, the current file (sprm145.ibs) was downloaded from ti.com recently. And I'm sure that it matches the rev D device. My question is, how closely does the Rev B device (especially on the EMIF Address and Data outputs) match the Rev D device? Should I expect the Rev D device to match the Rev B device fairly closely, regarding drive strength and edge rates? 

    I don't know the history of the older file, I was not on the project back then, so I don't know its origin. I assume it was either downloaded from ti.com or provided by the FAE, but that was several years ago. All I know is that was provided to us at the time we did the original design, and it was archived with the other design documents. Now that we are converting from Rev B to Rev D, we are again reviewing everything. 

  • 0 in reply to Dale Blankenship1
    TI__Guru** 124008 points

    Hello Dale Blankenship1, 

    Thank you for the inputs.

    Based on the revision history captured in the IBIS model, these should be fairly matching each other. 

    Since the revB model background is limited, i would recommend going ahead and continuing to use the model on TI.com.

    Regards,

    Sreenivasa

  • 0 in reply to Dale Blankenship1
    TI__Guru** 124008 points

    Hello Dale Blankenship1, 

    Noted and you have a great day.

    Regards,

    Sreenivasa