====================================================================== IBIS INTERCONNECT TASK GROUP http://www.eda.org/ibis/interconnect_wip/    Mailing list: ibis-interconnect@freelists.org  Archives at http://www.freelists.org/archive/ibis-interconnect/   ====================================================================== Agenda: 1) Roll call 2) Call for patent disclosures 3) Opens 4) Review of ARs 5) Complete review of IC vendor examples (A. Muranyi) - what does each proposal look like for a realistic case? - are there any features or situations where the proposals significantly differ (particularly a structure that cannot be described) - which value is more important: re-use of existing IBIS keywords/structures or simplicity of format? You can use computer audio without dialing into the number below by simply using the Lync application on an audio-enabled device; this helps identify individual speakers as well as noise sources. ......................................................................................................................................... Join online meeting https://meet.intel.com/michael.mirmak/8BGBKFV9 Join by Phone +1(916)356-2663 (or your local bridge access #) Choose bridge 5.  Enter the Conference ID below, then press #, and # again.      Find a local number Conference ID: 560893518 --------------------------------------------------------------------- MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, March 26, 2014 Agilent Technologies - Radek Biernacki Altera - David Banas Cadence Design Systems - Brad Brim Intel - Michael Mirmak Mentor Graphics - John Angulo, Arpad Muranyi, Andrey Matvienko Micron Technology - Justin Butterfield, Randy Wolff Signal Integrity Software - Walter Katz Teraspeed Consulting Group- Bob Ross Opens John Angulo reported that Mentor Graphics has received a room reservation confirmation for the DAC IBIS Summit meeting.  Thanks, John! Michael Mirmak summarized the package proposal issues now before the IBIS community.  He asked whether combination of the two main proposals is possible.   Arpad Muranyi and Walter Katz both noted that this was possible.    Michael requested that any differences not be used competitively (“X does A, but Y doesn’t”) but in terms of integration. Arpad showed, using data from Randy Wolff of Micron, the same structures using the two proposed formats.  Walter Katz proposed that syntax be discussed later to cover unimportant differences.  For the SiSoft proposal, the example - used [Pin Mapping], to define busses (syntax shows NC for some cases) - showed connections using pin-to-pad connections - [Begin ISS Model] keyword used - associated *by position* to Touchstone file's ports Alternately, BIRD163-165 with Circuit Call uses: - Circuit Call -> External Circuit (by name) - the Touchstone filename is a parameter of Circuit Call (e.g., "Rx_Typ.s76p") - Port mapping defines connections between pins and ports - proposal points out language (IBIS-ISS, to point to Touchstone data) - Package file is an include - Ports are called out by position as well, under External Circuit Radek Biernacki observed that there is some redundancy in the BIRD163-165 approach; the SiSoft proposal makes more direct connections between pins and pads.  Arpad noted that he was trying to keep the least amount of changes to the specification. Arpad noted that the BIRD163-165 proposal lifts the restriction for on-die interconnect using E. Circuit and buffers ([Model]) being in series.  Also External Circuit is used for packages. Walter noted that this proposal requires additional files.  Parameters don't have corners associated with them.  Arpad replied that BIRD160 allows parameters to be controlled per corner. The examples use Pin Mapping to create buses, which are shorted to the buffers; but the buses are not shorted to pins.  In the examples given, "power_bus" is a new subparameter/keyword. Walter noted that the SiSoft proposal uses a naming convention on ports, whereas Arpad uses Circuit Call, etc.  Functionally both methods are equivalent. Arpad challenged the assumption of verbosity being larger in the BIRD163-165 proposal vs. SiSoft’s.  Michael suggested that file sizes could be compared.  Radek inquired about using nodes instead of ports.  He agreed that there was no functional difference between the two proposals. Michael asked, before adjourning whether the two proposals could both exist simultaneously. The review will continue in the next meeting.