RE: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter and Noise Parameters

From: Bob Ross <bob@teraspeed.com>
Date: Thu Jul 11 2013 - 14:29:46 PDT
Arpad:

 

I agree that the rules should be spelled out.  What we decide

should be discussed at the next ATM meeting.

 

Repeaters and future back channel training should be considered

in formulating the rules.

 

Bob

 

From: owner-ibis@eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis@eda.org] On Behalf Of Muranyi,
Arpad
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:06 PM
To: ibis@eda.org
Subject: RE: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter
and Noise Parameters

 

Bob,

 

Regarding Fangyi's suggestion, this is not something I

should decide (or agree/disagree).  We need to discuss

and decide his suggestion collectively.

 

I can see reasons for it being useful, but then the

question is why only Rx and why only the last call?

Making use of the values returned by Tx GetWave could

be just as useful in some cases, or making use of all

returned values between GetWave calls might also be

useful in some cases.

 

Whatever we decide, the bottom line is that the rules

should be spelled out in the specification clearly and

unambiguously.  For example, in the suggestion below I

read this:

 

"EDA tools should still be allowed to use the Rx parameters  returned by

the last GetWave operation."

 

This means that we need to state that only value returned

by Rx can be used by the EDA tool in this way, and only

its output from the last call within a simulation.  We may

also need to say a few words on what and how the EDA tool

can use these values for as opposed to the rest of the

returned values.  How would all this effect repeaters, and

back channel simulations?  Could the returned values from

one simulation be used in the next (in training), or could

the value of one channel be applied to the next channel

(in the case of repeaters), etc.

 

I don't think that a small tweak on that sentence can do

all this, we may need a few more sentences to achieve this.

An as you know, the more we write, the more discussion will

follow to get it right and unambiguous.  Do we have time

for that now?

 

Thanks,

 

Arpad

============================================================

 

 

 

From: Bob Ross [mailto:bob@teraspeed.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:30 AM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis@eda.org
Subject: RE: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter
and Noise Parameters

 

Arpad:

 

Your write-up looks good to me.

 

Regarding the second sentence, (first sentence in the second paragraph),

Fangyi suggested privately that it should apply only to Tx Jitter
parameters:

 

If Tx jitter parameters are Usage Out, then the EDA Tool/Simulator shall use
values returned by AMI_Init.

 

 

He stated that EDA tools should still be allowed to use the Rx parameters
returned by

the last GetWave operation.

 

Do you agree with this view, and should we modify the second paragraph

to capture these rules?

 

Bob

 

 

From: owner-ibis@eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis@eda.org] On Behalf Of Muranyi,
Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:48 PM
To: ibis@eda.org
Subject: RE: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter
and Noise Parameters

 

How about something along these lines:

 

Note:

If the Jitter and Noise parameters are Usage Info, the EDA tool/simulator
shall obtain their values

from the AMI parameter (.ami) file, optionally through a user interface if
user selections are

available or needed.

 

If these parameters are Usage Out, the EDA tool/simulator shall use the
values returned by the

AMI_Init function.  It is the model maker 's responsibility to make sure
that the AMI_Init function

returns the appropriate value in these parameters to the EDA tool/simulator
to achieve successful

simulations.

 

The model's AMI_GetWave function may also return values in these parameters
to the EDA

tool/simulator, and these values are not required to be the same as the
values previously

returned by the AMI_Init function.  The EDA tool/simulator may report the
values returned

by the AMI_GetWave function to the user, but these values may not be used by
the EDA

tool/simulator to modify or calculate parameter values passed into
simulation models in

subsequent function calls or simulations, or to modify or calculate the
simulation results

in any way.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Arpad

===================================

 

From: Bob Ross [mailto:bob@teraspeed.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:13 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis@eda.org
Cc: bob@teraspeed.com
Subject: RE: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter
and Noise Parameters

 

Arpad:

 

I understand the concern.

 

An alternative paragraph might state:

 

Note:

The EDA Tool/Simulator shall use the values of the Jitter and Noise
parameters directly (or as selected by the user according to the parameter
Type descriptions) if they are Usage Info. If they are Usage Out, then the
EDA Tool/Simulator shall use the values returned by AMI_Init. The model's
AMI_GetWave function may return different values for these parameters than
the values returned by AMI_Init; the EDA Tool/Simulator may report the
values of such parameters to the user, but the EDA Tool/Simulator may not
change any input to AMI models or change any result of the simulation based
on the values returned for the Jitter and Noise parameters by AMI_GetWave.

 

Can you suggest improvements?

 

Bob

 

 

Bob

 

From: owner-ibis@eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis@eda.org] On Behalf Of Muranyi,
Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:17 PM
To: ibis@eda.org
Subject: RE: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter
and Noise Parameters

 

Bob,

 

Good catch about referencing the BIRD at the end.  The

last sentence does not sound all that much better this

way either.

 

But in addition, I just realized that this entire note

only talks about what the EDA tool should do.  It doesn't

say what the responsibilities of the model maker is.  I

think we need to spell out that if any of these parameters

is Usage Out, the model maker has to make sure that the Init

function returns a valid value for the EDA tool, and then

we can mention that they can also return other values in

GetWave, but those will not be used by the EDA tool or

the model in any way to have an effect on the simulation,

or its results.

 

I am getting nitpicky now, but I also wonder about the word

"directly" in the first sentence.  I understand the intent,

meaning "from the .ami file not from the AMI model", but to

some the word "directly" might mean "without user intervention"

in the context of the EDA tool providing a GUI for the user to

select a specific value.  This can't be the case, since some

types might require user selection (list, range, etc.), but

the word "directly" might imply that.

 

Thanks,

 

Arpad

==============================================================

 

From: Bob Ross [mailto:bob@teraspeed.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:36 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis@eda.org
Cc: bob@teraspeed.com
Subject: RE: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter
and Noise Parameters

 

Arpad:

 

Thanks for catching this.  The paragraph also contains a self-reference

to a BIRD.

 

I would reword the last clause from

 

Note:

The EDA Tool/Simulator shall use the values of these Jitter and Noise
parameters directly if they are Usage Info. If they are Usage Out, then the
EDA Tool/Simulator shall use their values generated by AMI_Init. The model's
AMI_GetWave function may return different values for these parameters than
the values returned by AMI_Init; the EDA Tool/Simulator may report the
values of such parameters to the user, but the EDA Tool/Simulator may not
change any inputs to AMI models or change other result of the simulation
based on the values returned for the parameters in this BIRD by AMI_GetWave.

 

 

To

 

Note:

The EDA Tool/Simulator shall use the values of the Jitter and Noise
parameters directly if they are Usage Info. If they are Usage Out, then the
EDA Tool/Simulator shall use their values generated by AMI_Init. The model's
AMI_GetWave function may return different values for these parameters than
the values returned by AMI_Init; the EDA Tool/Simulator may report the
values of such parameters to the user, but the EDA Tool/Simulator may not
change any input to AMI models or change any result of the simulation based
on the values returned for the Jitter and Noise parameters by AMI_GetWave.

 

 

Is this ok?

 

Bob

 

 

From: owner-ibis@eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis@eda.org] On Behalf Of Muranyi,
Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:52 AM
To: ibis@eda.org
Subject: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter and
Noise Parameters

 

Thanks to the authors of this BIRD for the quick actions.

I would like to request that the following sentence be

corrected, because it is grammatically incorrect, and 

because of that not clear (red emphasis added to point

to the problem area):

 

".but the EDA Tool/Simulator may not change any inputs to AMI models or
change other result of the simulation based on the values returned."

 

Thanks,

 

Arpad

==========================================================

 

From: owner-ibis@eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis@eda.org] On Behalf Of Mirmak,
Michael
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 9:23 PM
To: ibis@eda.org
Subject: [IBIS] BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter and
Noise Parameters

 

BIRD162, Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter and Noise Parameters,
has been posted on behalf of Bob Ross of Teraspeed Consulting Group, Walter
Katz of Signal Integrity Software (SiSoft), and Fangyi Rao of Agilent
Technologies.

 

The text may be found at http://www.eda.org/ibis/birds/bird162.docx (the
text is not attached here due to a reflector policy prohibition on
attachments). The BIRD will be introduced at the next IBIS Open Forum
teleconference.

 

A complete list of BIRDs, including the status of each, is available at:
http://www.eda.org/ibis/birds/  

 

      Michael Mirmak 

      Intel Corp. 

      Chair, IBIS Open Forum 

 


-- 
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  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, 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  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, 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 mikelabonte@eda-stds.org
|or ibis-request@eda-stds.org
|
|IBIS reflector archives exist under:
|
|  http://www.eda-stds.org/ibis/email_archive/ Recent
|  http://www.eda-stds.org/ibis/users_archive/ Recent
|  http://www.eda-stds.org/ibis/email/         E-mail since 1993
Received on Thu Jul 11 14:30:53 2013

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 11 2013 - 14:31:31 PDT