================================================================================ 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 22, 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 May 15, 2019 meeting. Mike LaBonte moved to approve the minutes. Walter Katz seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - None. Opens: - Walter stated he sent out an email about scoping the IBIS-ISS parser. - Michael stated the Touchstone Survey was set to close on May 17th, but we have left it open. Touchstone Survey Status, Results, and Plans: Mike shared the survey results and noted it has not yet been officially closed. There are 88 responses, and no one has responded since Friday. Mike received a response from Eric Bogatin. Eric took the survey and mentioned a possible article on Touchstone in the SI Journal. Mike stated he could clone the survey, but this would separate the results. Michael noted the issue is if the article would bring in new responses. Arpad Muranyi thought the 88 responses are good. Mike noted the reason for reaching out to Eric is to reach measurement hardware vendors, as we received only 5 responses from the this group. Michael noted that respondents could mark multiple categories. Mike shared the results of the survey. He noted 81% of people have heard Touchstone 2.0. Most people that have heard of it have used Touchstone 2.0. Only 16% of people have used TSCHK2. Randy Wolff suggested that most people that have used Touchstone 2.0 models would rely on their simulation tool to read in and check the files. Mike stated there are mixed results for people who have software that can read Touchstone 1.0 but not 2.0. Walter commented we would have to look into who answered this question which way. Mike noted about 50% have created Touchstone 2.0 files, while 87% of people have created Touchstone files. Randy commented it looked like port names was the most wanted feature. Mike noted that 53 people picked port names, which was clearly the number one priority. Walter noted sparse matrix was number 2. Mike noted binary format and reduced order / pole-zero were close for 3rd and 4th. Mike noted there were 14 text comments. Mike suggested he can send out the results to the list, so people can review it. Bob Ross suggested if we send out the results we should close the survey. Arpad asked if the survey answers the questions of what we need to do next. Walter stated he is prepared to discuss his thoughts on the results of the survey. Arpad asked if we can send out the results in a PDF. Walter asked if Mike can send the data out as a spreadsheet. Michael asked if we are ready to close the survey. Mike noted he has a clone that we can use if necessary. Walter moved to close the survey. Arpad seconded the motion. Bob commented that the SI List provided a list that includes the P370 group. Michael noted the P370 group was sent the survey directly as well as IEEE 2401. There were no objections. Mike to send the survey data out the reflector [AR]. Michael stated we need to present this to the IBIS Open Forum. Mike commented he will explore the best way to do this. Arpad suggested to have an excel file of the raw file. Michael agreed and stated we need to carefully present the summary of the data. EMD Draft 3 Status: Bob stated no work has been done. He suggested the next step was to go through the document and clean up some of the inconsistencies. Michael asked if any of the issues to be resolved have been done. Bob replied not yet. Michael suggested for the EMD draft to resolve the comments and any additional technical changes. Walter thought that most of the issues are editorial and clarifications. We need to decide if we want to use bus_labels. He prefers this to keep this as a component level feature. Walter commented that signal_type is an important feature. Bob added another issue is if we can have one module or multiple modules in one file. Walter stated he strongly prefers to allow only one module per EMD file. Bob will try another editorial pass to make things more consistent in terms of naming some of the parameters. He does not plan to resolve the technical issues. Bob noted that one issue is that the EMD file has to rely on the IBIS file for the pin and signal information. Walter noted this is done when flattening the netlist and the interface is connected with the pin number. Bob commented this is not clear in the EMD draft. IBIS-ISS Parser: Walter stated he sent out an email to define the four levels of IBIS-ISS parser. The first level is to evaluate the legality of the each line. The second level is to evaluate the structure. Level three is to flatten the netlist. And, level four is to verify the rules. Michael suggested we will need to review these in detail. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be May 29. Arpad moved to adjourn. Walter seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection. ================================================================================ Bin List: EMD Comments to be Resolved: 1. Change top level keywords to distinguish between EMD and Interconnect Models 2. Add Touchstone to the introduction 3. Clarify the meaning of signal_type 4. File format structure 5. Number of [Module] keywords allowed per EMD file. 6. Should bus_labels be allowed? IBIS-ISS Parser: - IBIS-ISS parser scope document