================================================================================ 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 May 9, 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: - Michael called for review of the minutes from the May 2 meeting. Randy Wolff moved to approve the minutes. Bob Ross seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Bob to write a decoupling model example. - Bob reported this is in the revised document. He noted it was inserted as Example 13, and he renumbered the examples that follow. - Bob to change the name of BIRD189.6 to draft1 and Mike LaBonte to post it. - Michael noted that this done. - Bob to rewrite the section on page 34. - Bob reported that this is done in the draft he sent out, but it needs to be reviewed. Opens: - Bob stated that he has a newer version of the document, BIRD189.6_draft2_v1_br2, that he has made a few additional edits based on feedback from Randy. Michael asked if this has been sent out to the group. Bob replied that it has not. BIRD189.6_draft2_v1_br2 Review: Bob commented in the BIRD189.6_draft2_v1_br2 he fixed a typo in the example that Randy had noted regarding a an extra comment character. Randy noted this looked like it had been in there for a while. Bob noted, on page 35, he replaced a large section of text. Michael asked about the phrase "pin_name value" in the first sentence. He asked if Bob means the pin_name values connect. Randy said he also had questions about this sentence. Bob stated this section relates to the [Interconnect Model] keyword. The first paragraph relates to the [Interconnect Model] itself. The second paragraph relates to Sets. In the first paragraph, he is saying that the terminal at each interface should be unique and rail terminals should not overlap with each other. We exclude overlapping pin_names in Interconnect Models. Michael asked about the second sentence in the first paragraph and if the word "or" is necessary. It implies that we can violate one rule and not the other. Randy agreed and suggested to use "also". Bob stated he will make it two sentences with the word "also". Bob commented the second paragraph deals with the names matching. Randy asked what this paragraph is really saying. Bob replied that it is possible to have an interconnect that goes from buffer to pad and another from pad to pin. At the pad interface, the models are connected. Randy suggested that the second sentence could be expanded to better state this. Michael asked if this applies to two different Interconnect Models. Bob stated, yes, in one Set. Michael suggested to expand the sentence. Michael asked about the phrase "identical names" and thought we should work on the wording of this second sentence. He suggested to highlight this sentence to be reworded later. Bob asked about the third sentence in the second paragraph regarding rail terminals and if the wording is clear. Michael suggested to add a comma after "For rail terminals". Bob commented that this means that same named terminals are connected. Michael asked about the word "or". Bob thought we could change it to "and". Arpad Muranyi asked about the word "subset". Bob replied if we use 1, 2, and 3 for VDD at an interface, then the pin is really a subset of VDD and 1, 2, and 3 get collapsed. Arpad asked if this relates to a bus. Bob stated these can be shorted in this way. Arpad suggested to use the phrase "a member of" rather than subset, as these are not fractions of a larger group. We can refer to them by the individual name or the by the group. Bob stated his intent is that it could be a member of another group. Bob noted there is an exception that Aggressor_Only pins can have different entries. Michael asked if this a problem that comes up elsewhere in the document. Bob thought it is discussed in the Aggressor_Only figures. He noted that we don't show the expanded version where the PDN is included. The exception means that the two PDNs are not pulled in parallel to each other. Bob commented that the third paragraph states a Group has the same connection rules. This also covers the case with different Aggressor_Only combinations. Arpad asked about the word "doing" in the last sentence of the last paragraph in red. Michael suggested to use the word "during". Michael asked about the word "would" in this sentence. Bob changed this to "should". Arpad asked about the term "PDN Interconnect Model". This comes across as a new term which is never defined. Randy noted that this is on page 9 in the second Rail terminal rule. Michael asked if we should change this to "rail Interconnect Model". Arpad suggested to spell out "power delivery Interconnect Model". Michael and Randy agreed with this. Arpad asked if the first bullet under Rail terminal rules does not apply to the Group. Bob stated there are no Interconnect Models in the group, as it only references Sets. Arpad asked if we mean that the rule applies to both Sets and Groups. Bob thought we could add the word "Sets" to the rule. Randy pointed out there is a note below the Rail terminal rules that relates to this. Michael asked if we need to better reference the note. Arpad stated that he still has an issue, as it seems the first and second rules are stating different things. Randy suggested to add the word "Group" to the first rule to make it more consistent. Michael asked if there are any technical concerns in the new text. Bob noted he has a few other editorial changes. He will keep the rail changes in red until we upload the document as a draft2. Michael asked if we need to do some editorial tweaks off-line, then vote this out. Bob thought we can capture any changes in email. Bob to send out the latest version to the reflector [AR]. Bob noted it will have some items marked in yellow which still need to be resolved on Friday. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be May 11. Mike moved to adjourn. Arpad seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection. Task List BIRD189.5 editorial additions/changes to be completed: 1. Resolve inconsistency with using node 0 and node "0" by replacing with "node 0".