================================================================================ 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 April 10, 2019 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: - Michael called for review of the minutes from the April 10, 2019 meeting. Justin noted that the list of attendees missed including Walter Katz. Randy Wolff moved to approve the minutes noting this correction. Bob Ross seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Everyone to review and provide feedback on the latest EMD draft. - Michael stated we will discuss this as part of the agenda. - Michael to bring up the EMD draft as part of his Interconnect Task Group update. - Michael reported this is done. - Michael to send out the email of survey questions as it is now. - Michael reported this is done. Opens: Michael noted there is a preview link that he did not send out that is a better way to view the Touchstone survey. This allows you to test out the responses without submitting results. EMD Draft Comments Review: Michael asked if Walter has received any comments on the EMD draft. Walter replied that he has not. Bob commented, because the syntax is technically different from Interconnect Modeling, he suggested to not reuse the same keywords as Interconnect Models. He suggested [Electrical Module]s and [Electrical Module Set]s for the new keywords. He commented that you connect at the pin interface and thought we should be able to connect with bus_label. There is a third column of signal_type, and this could be a bus_label. Bob also suggested to clarify the meaning of the signal_type column. Michael asked if the keyword distinction is similar to what is done for EBD. Bob noted that EBD is different from package models at the top level. He noted the rules for EMD are different then for Interconnect Models. We do not want to make backward reference to the Interconnect Model keyword definitions, since the rules would be different for EMD. Walter was not opposed to changing the names of some keywords, but asked where do we stop. He asked if we would also change the name File_IBIS-ISS and File_TS. Bob replied that these are okay, since the rules are the same. Bob commented that the first paragraph does not mention Touchstone. Bob noted there is no one-to-one rule for EMD, but for stacked die, one I/O terminal might go to die with different pin numbers. Walter noted this would be perfectly legal. Arpad Muranyi agreed this is the purpose of EMD to allow these type of models, as they are not allowed in BIRD189 syntax. Bob stated he was not sure why we need the signal_type column information. Michael asked how we will track these changes. Walter summarized the suggested changes: 1. Change the top level keywords to distinguish between EMD and Interconnect Models 2. Add Touchstone to the introduction 3. Clarify the meaning of signal_type Walter will review the document and make these changes. He noted the bus_label is another issue, but this would complicate EMD, since EMD connects to a pin or group of pins that happen to be on a bus_label inside the device. Bob suggested to start with a cleaner baseline then start tracking issues. Walter noted he will make the changes to the EMD draft with tracking turned on [AR]. Michael suggested to have a more formal review tracking and noted we will plan to discuss the changes next week. Arpad asked, in the Interconnect Model terminal lines, if it is possible to connect the same subcircuit to different pins. He asked if there is any shortcut to connect the same subcircuit to different pins. Bob replied we do not permit this. Arpad noted there is a lot of overhead in creating the Interconnect Models for this case. Walter stated you could do this by model, by applying the same Interconnect Model to [Model]s. But, we may want a more general way to do this, to apply the same Interconnect Model to a group of pins. This would require some minor changes. Randy noted there could also be a shortcut to pass in a parameter as part of the shortcut to change the length. Bob noted there could be factorial situations with aggressors in both the EMD and the Interconnect Model. There could also be parameter passing issues between EMD and Interconnect Models. He highlighted these as potential issues to discuss later. Touchstone Industry Mail Draft Review: Michael noted that Mike LaBonte has put together a Survey Monkey. He shared a preview of the survey. Mike had highlighted we may be restricted in how we can view and collect the results, but he is looking into this. Arpad asked if it prevents a person from responding to the survey more than once. Michael agreed this is a good question. Bob commented we may get multiple responses from one company. Michael noted that we only track the type of company as an EDA vendor, model maker, or model user. Walter noted this is an informal straw poll and that we have to trust people to not load the ballot. Michael stated, when you go to the preview, you can fill out the survey, but it will not be an official response. The comments allow us to markup the survey. Arpad asked if the first question should allow for multiple selections. Michael noted if you answer "No" for Question 3 then it does not force you skip to Question 7. Walter noted the "1.x" should be "1.0", as we have a Touchstone 1.0 specification that he sent out. Walter noted an issue with Question 8 where he was not able to check multiple answers. He was also not able to go back and change the response. Arpad suggested we could order the most wanted features. Bob thought it is not the roll of the survey to prioritize the features to add. Arpad asked if we are adding new features to Touchstone 1.0 or Touchstone 2.0 and suggested to change the question to remove the word added. Walter replied that none of these features are in Touchstone 2.0. Michael noted the "Other" field in Question 9 does not allow you to type out and specify. He also stated we need to discuss how to send the survey out. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be April 17. Arpad moved to adjourn. Randy seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection. Topic Bin List: 1. IBIS 7.0 Interconnect model examples from Micron.