================================================================================ 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 27, 2020 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio) ANSYS Curtis Clark Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak* Ifiok Umoh Eric Edwards 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* Zuken USA Lance Wang* 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 20, 2020 meeting. Randy Wolff moved to approve the minutes. Bob Ross seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Randy to send out EMD draft11. - Michael reported this was done. Opens: - None. EMD Draft Review: Arpad commented he reviewed the connection rules, and the first highlighted section makes it seems as though the pins are shorted. He suggested to change the sentence to say "connected through the series resistor". Randy commented we had discussed in the last meeting showing examples of these rules. Bob noted there are two cases for the series resistor and the first rule is for the case where the connection is made in the EMD Model. Arpad suggested for the rules to refer back to the examples. Arpad asked about the word "embedded" in Example 1. The term embedded resistor could be mean the resistor is built into the PCB. Bob noted the EMD model could contain the resistor or there could be separate EMD models. Arpad commented we need to be clear between the EMD file and the [EMD Model] keyword. We have the A07 signal_name, which has two pins that are connected. Randy suggested we could remove the mentions of the series resistor from the connection rules. Michael agreed with this and made this change. Arpad suggested to say the pins are connected by the IBIS-ISS model. Michael made these changes. Michael asked if they are connected because the signal_names are the same. He suggested to change the sentence to say "are considered connected". Randy asked about the labeling of the examples. Michael asked why the examples are broken into separate subsections. Bob replied this was done since the examples are so large. Michael suggested to keep the example numbering as is for now. Arpad asked if we can remove the text highlighting. Michael removed the highlighting and red text on page 35. Michael asked about the connection rule 1.b.ii, which had a comment to fix. Randy also commented the phrase "for example" in 1.b.i is hanging. Bob noted you cannot have pin 211 Aggressor_Only twice. Arpad asked about the [EMD Model]s. Michael noted the main issue is with the examples. Randy suggested to make this example case a sub-item under 1.b.i. Randy suggested to remove the brackets from the [EMD Model] or add the word "keyword". Michael added the word "keyword" and kept the brackets, as suggested by Arpad. Arpad also noted a typo to change "exit" to "exists". Michael asked about the pin_names in the nets that have the Aggressor_Only and if more than one is permitted. Randy noted, in Interconnect if we have an Aggressor_Only on one terminal, it is is carried through to the other terminals. Michael asked about the meaning of the term "net". Bob replied a net is captured in an EMD Group and should span the signal_name. Michael asked how we will check the Aggressor_Only rules. Bob noted all of the EMD Models get all lumped together even though they may reside in other Sets and Groups. Anything labeled A07 with Aggressor_Only would have this designation. Michael asked if this clear from the text what the term "net" means, and if this includes Sets and Groups. Bob replied this is stated at the top of the rules. Michael asked if "Connections" should be lower case in rule 2. Randy agreed and suggested to make "Pin" in rule 1 lower case as well. Michael changed rule 2.a from "connected" to "considered connected". Michael asked, regarding 2.a.i, if it is true that only rails can be included. Bob noted we can support PDN only models. Arpad asked if there is s similar statement for the I/O terminals. Bob replied we could add this. Michael added this rule to the I/O terminal rules. Randy noted this applies to both cases of with and without Aggressor_Only. Michael asked, once we are done reviewing the connection rules, are there additional changes not considered editorial. Bob asked if we need more examples. Randy replied we have a lot of examples. Bob asked if some of the example can be deleted. Michael suggested for everyone think about this and discuss next time. Michael asked if we should delete the additional rules. Bob suggested we should briefly review them and delete this section. Michael will send out EMD draft12 [AR]. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be June 3. Arpad moved to adjourn. Randy seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection. ================================================================================ Bin List: EMD Comments to be Resolved: (See BIRD202.1 tracking spreadsheet) IBIS-ISS Parser: - IBIS-ISS parser scope document