================================================================================ IBIS EDITORIAL TASK GROUP http://www.ibis.org/editorial_wip/ Mailing list: ibis-editorial@freelists.org Archives at http://www.freelists.org/archive/ibis-interconn/ ================================================================================ Attendees from September 5, 2018 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio) ANSYS Curtis Clark Cadence Design Systems Bradley Brim Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak* Keysight Technologies Radek Biernacki Mentor, A Siemens Business Arpad Muranyi* Micron Technology Justin Butterfield*, Randy Wolff SiSoft Walter Katz, Mike LaBonte Teraspeed Labs Bob Ross* Michael Mirmak convened the meeting. No patents were declared. Justin Butterfield took minutes. Review of minutes from the August 29 meeting: Bob Ross moved to approve. Arpad Muranyi seconded. Minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Michael to send out the latest draft latest IBIS 7.0 draft to the group. - Michael reported the latest drafts have been sent out and posted to the website. Opens: - Michael noted we need some time at the end of the meeting to discuss the upcoming meeting schedule. Editorial review of ver7_0_180905.docx and the task checklist: Michael noted in the last meeting we finished on checklist item 26. The next is checklist item 27 which is BIRD179. It makes changes to page 225 at the end of the GENERAL RESERVED PARAMETERS section. Michael does not believe there were any interactions with other BIRDs. He updated the AMI_Version to 7.0. He also added the Special_Parm_Names to several of the tables at the end of the section ending on page 228. Arpad agreed with this change. We marked the item as verified. Michael stated checklist item 28 is for BIRD180. The change is to the [Pin] keyword, which interacts with another BIRD. The technical changes are adding the phrase "which shall not be repeated within the same [Pin] keyword for a [Component]" and adding "CIRCUITCALL" to the reserved model name list. He noted we will re-examine this section later, as it is changed by a different BIRD. Arpad asked about the first sentence word "shall" or "should". Michael noted it is "should" based on the other BIRD that changed this section. We marked this item as verified. Michael noted checklist item 29 is for BIRD182 from Walter. This BIRD makes changes to [Pin Mapping]. Michael asked if we want to change the word "must" to "shall" per our convention. Arpad agreed. Michael noted the BIRD also makes changes to page 35. Michael again changed "must" to "shall". Arpad agreed and noted bus_label was misspelled. Arpad asked if this shorting rule applies even when there is no Interconnect Model. In the old rules, we would only apply a short if the [Pin Mapping] stated to do so. If we do not have [Pin Mapping], do these shorts still apply. He also suggested to add "defined in pin mapping" to the first sentence of the BIRD. Bob noted the same rule applies to the other ways of defining bus_label. Michael asked if we do not explicitly define the bus_label, is there a way to have a default bus_label. Bob stated that if the bus_labal is not defined, it is defined through the signal_name for POWERs and GNDs. Michael noted that this is an open technical question: Do we have a bus_label created even if we don't have [Pin Mapping], [Bus Label], or [Die Supply Pads] through the [Pin]. Bob noted he might have covered this in his presentation on the different ways of creating bus_labels. Arpad thought this is defined for BIRD189 models, but his question is if this rule regarding the second column of [Pin] creating a bus_label when we do not have a [Pin Mapping] entry still creates a short for legacy package models. Bob noted it depends on the interface. Arpad asked if we should list the other keywords with [Pin Mapping] on page 35. Michael agreed and added "[Bus Label], or [Die Supply Pads] keywords" to the sentence. We marked item 29 as verified. Michael stated checklist item 30 is BIRD183 from Bob. He asked asked about the hierarchy table changes. Bob stated that the hierarchy diagram he is working on has this corrected as well. Michael asked if the word "and" in the first sentence is correct. Arpad commented it can be deleted. The BIRD also changes from the word "subparameters" to "enumerated formats". We marked this as verified. Michael stated checklist item 31 is for BIRD184.2. He noted this also touches the [Pin] keyword section. Some of the changes overlap with BIRD180. The word "column" was missing. He noted the new paragraph is added. Bob asked about the pin_name column, and he was concerned we are mixing pin_name entry and the pin_name. Michael noted in this section we are correct in this language. Arpad suggested to call it the "first column of the [Pin] keyword". Bob commented in BIRD189 pin_name is used as a qualifier, but we do not define it. Michael asked if we should change the parenthetical to talk about the entries in the first column. Arpad agreed with this. Michael noted that the second paragraph is correct. He commented that we have resolved any conflicts and overlap with BIRD180. We marked this as verified. Michael noted checklist item 32 is BIRD185.2 from Bob. The text in the second bullet was changed, and an additional paragraph was added. This does mention pin_name. Arpad suggested to change it to the "first column of the [Pin] keyword". Arpad asked about the language of the second bullet. Michael changed this to delete "elsewhere" and add "explicitly". We marked this as verified. Michael noted we can meet on Friday, but he cannot host on Wednesday next week. Bob suggested to not hold a meeting on that day. Michael suggested we can this discuss further on Friday. Michael will send out the latest draft and checklist [AR]. Arpad moved to adjourn. Justin seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection. The next meeting will take place Friday, September 7. Open Technical Questions: 1. BIRD182: POWER and GND [Pin] signal_name as [Pin Mapping] bus_label a. Is a bus_label created even if we don't have [Pin Mapping], [Bus Label], or [Die Supply Pads] through the [Pin]? b. Is a bus_label short created for legacy package models based on the second column of [Pin] when we do not have a [Pin Mapping] entry?