================================================================================ IBIS INTERCONNECT TASK GROUP http://www.ibis.org/interconnect_wip/ Mailing list: ibis-interconnect@freelists.org Archives at http://www.freelists.org/archive/ibis-interconn/ ================================================================================ Attendees from January 10, 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* Mike LaBonte convened the meeting. No patents were declared. Justin Butterfield took minutes. Review of Minutes: - Mike called for review of the minutes from the January 3 meeting. Randy Wolff moved to approve the minutes. Justin seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. Opens: - None. Summary from ATM: Arpad Muranyi reported that there was some discussion on the Aggressor_Only drawing. Arpad had raised the point that we should include more interesting examples. He is currently working on this. Arpad noted that a BIRD to make corrections to Figure 29 was also discussed in ATM. The goal is to eliminate inconsistent examples and make the IBIS specification consistent with BIRD189. Aggressor_Only Graphic: Mike noted that the Aggressor_Only graphic was discussed in detail at the ATM meeting. He asked if anyone wanted to raise any issues or had any questions on the graphic. None were raised. BIRD189.5_draft15_v2 review: Bob Ross noted that he changed some capitalization in the [Interconnect Model Group] rules section. He also brought out all the Terminal_types that are defined. Arpad asked why "Rail" is capitalized while "ref" is not. Bob stated that this is what we agreed to when this was discussed. Mike agreed. Bob stated that we can reopen the discussion. Arpad declined to reopen the discussion. Bob noted that there is also an inconsistency with the capitalization of these terms in [Pin Mapping]. Bob added a paragraph about *_I/O. He used the term "interface" rather than "boundary" to be more consistent with the rest of BIRD189, although he noted the term "interface" is overused in the IBIS specification. Bob added a rule that all I/O pin_names may be victims. He has added some of the rules as a bullet list, but the indentation of this list needs to be cleaned up. Mike pointed out the colons in the bullet need to be reviewed. Arpad noted that these items can be reviewed as part of the editorial work. Walter Katz noted that he has reviewed the changes and agrees with them. Bob noted he has some questions about what is meant by the paragraph: "If an I/O pin_name is not in any Model as a victim ... the user should be aware that it will not include all of its crosstalk aggressors." Walter noted that it means the Aggressor_Only net does not have all the coupling affects. Arpad agreed, but noted that the wording of the paragraph is a little confusing. Walter noted that some tools may have limitations on the number signal lines that can be included in the crosstalk model. In this case, only some signal pins would be able to used as victim, while the others would be limited to Aggressor_only. Bob noted his issue is with the wording of the sentence. Walter made a motion to remove the "What is meant here" statement. Bob seconded, but wanted to open discussion on the wording of the paragraph. Bob noted that we should constrain the sentence, so that it is clear that you are simulating only what is included in the model. He would add a statement that outside nets are not included. Randy stated it is unclear that this is in one Interconnect Model. Bob noted that the word "it" is ambiguous in the last part of the paragraph. Walter suggested to replace "it" with "the Interconnect Model" and replace "its" with "the Aggressor_only pin_name". Walter modified the motion to include the modified text. Bob commented that Aggressor_Only designator has not really been defined yet. Walter suggested to swap the order of Aggressor_Only and aggressor crosstalk in the last sentence of the paragraph. Mike suggested to say "*_I/O pin_name" to be consistent with the rest of the paragraph. There were no objections to the motion. Bob noted that the Rail terminal rules section has also been changed in this version. Walter asked what changed in this section. Bob replied that he did substantial rewriting. Arpad noted that we need to review these changes in detail. Mike asked about the "A_gnd" mentioned in the last bullet item, and if this is functionally correct. Bob noted that this is new as per the A_gnd changes. Walter suggested for everyone to go through and review these changes and determine if they are acceptable. Arpad asked about the nature of the changes and if they are text changes or if sections being moved around. Bob stated that most of the changes are text changes. Bob will send out the latest version of BIRD189.5_draft15_v3 [AR]. Mike will send out a comparison between BIRD189.5_draft15_v3 and BIRD189.5_draft14 [AR]. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be January 12. Justin moved to adjourn. Walter seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection. Task List BIRD189.5 editorial additions/changes to be completed: 1. Remove the word "reference" from the IBIS-ISS examples 2. Clarify the terms "Model", "Sets" and "Groups" 3. Resolve the comments in the document (e.g., on page 26, addressing “may” vs. “should/shall”) 4. Remove comments from Mike LaBonte regarding use of the phrase "by the EDA tool" 5. Add a new example showing the A_gnd syntax 6. Remove or modify Requirements 12 and 15