================================================================================ 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 June 10, 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 June 3, 2020 meeting. Randy moved to approve the minutes. Curtis seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Michael to send out EMD draft13. - Michael reported this was done. Opens: - None. EMD Draft Review: Michael noted we left off on rule 2.b with some changes to the header for this rule. He asked if there were any additional changes to the text of this rule. Randy asked about changing the word "node" to "terminal". Michael stated rule 2.a uses the phrase "identically-named terminals", and he noted that 2.a and 2.b are not talking about the same thing exactly. Randy was not sure we have used the words "node" and "terminal" consistently. Arpad asked what the difference is between a node and a terminal. He suggested a node should be an internal connection and a terminal should be an external connection. Arpad suggested to use the word "terminal" in the case of rule 2.b. Arpad asked about the word "connections" in the phrase "short all connections". Michael asked about connected rail pin_names and if you can connect the name. Bob replied you cannot, as there is no *.pin_name for this. The bus_label should match up, and the signal_names should match up. Arpad asked if we are shorting terminals or if we are shorting terminal lines. Michael replied "terminal lines" is describing the syntax. Arpad was concerned if terminals are for IBIS-ISS and ports are for S-parameters. Randy replied terminal is the higher level language referring to both cases. Bob commented rule 2.b shorts similarly named terminals across interfaces whether they are Touchstone or IBIS-ISS. Michael asked, for rule 2.c, if we want to say global ground. Bob replied we had defined simulator global reference in the past. Randy mentioned most of the use of the word "node" is in the phrase "global reference node". Arpad suggested rule 2.c.iii should say shorted rather than connected. Michael noted, after the connection rules, the next section should be deleted. He asked if any of this text needs to be retained. Michael asked about the sentence that starts with "all EMD models with only rail terminals", and if this has been rewritten. Bob replied the statements in the section 13.6 rules are equivalent. Michael asked if the rules have been replicated. Bob replied this could be look at as a cross check. Section 13.6 is reorganized to better group the rules and restate them. Michael asked about the phrase "EMD terminal" that is only used in this section and if we no longer want to use this phrase. Bob commented the intent was to delete the section. Randy suggested to review this off-line. Randy commented some of the introductions are only in this section. Michael agreed this should be reviewed. Randy suggested a few sentences can be moved to the introductions. Michael asked who would like to take this on. Randy will review the rule section marked for deletion on page 37 and identify text to be retained and moved to the introduction [AR]. Michael asked about the text at the top of page 38 and if this is duplicated elsewhere. Bob replied this was copied from the Interconnect Model Set with changes to the EMD Sets and Groups. This was intended to be superseded by 13.6. Michael asked if we need the same off-line review of this section. Bob noted some of the aggressor only rules are duplicated in section 13.6. Michael noted this needs the same review as the previous section. Randy will review the section marked for deletion on page 38 and propose how to integrate this text [AR]. Michael noted there is a third section on page 39 marked for deletion. Randy volunteered review the section marked for deletion on page 39 and propose how to integrate this text [AR]. Michael asked if the examples are general or are to illustrate the 13.6 rules. Bob noted there are many of the rules displayed in the examples. Bob noted the *.VDD rule is only shown in the examples. Randy noted the examples are meant to be after the keyword example for EMD Model. Michael asked if this intended to be the comprehensive examples. Randy replied the most comprehensive examples are in section 13.5, but they do not show all of the possible cases. Bob commented we might need more work on the examples. Michael commented the examples are in the correct location. Randy noted at typo in the examples, where the EMD pins "P1 P1" should be "P1 P2". Michael made this correction. Arpad noted an instance of "Pins" which should be "Pin". Michael fixed the same issue in all the examples. Bob asked about rule 2.b.i, where we use the angle brackets and we never use term singal_name_entry. He asked if we can use the angle brackets to mean the entry as a convention. We are referring to the actual entries that exist in the list. Michael noted we do use the angle brackets in the IBIS specification, such as for and . We are fairly consistent on this. Randy noted an issue on page 26 with a missing angle bracket. Michael asked if the word "entry" should be contained the in the brackets. Bob replied we are not consistent if we include the word "entry" in the brackets. Arpad noted we might want to check on signal_name_entry. Michael asked if we should remove the word "entry" in this case and the bus_label_entry case. Bob stated we also have qualifier_entry. Michael asked if the issue is with the underscore. Arpad commented the underscore tends to indicate it is a reserved word. Randy commented we have the same issue in the Interconnect Model section. Michael stated we used the underscore to note there should be no white space. Michael will send out EMD draft14 [AR]. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be June 17. Randy moved to adjourn. Arpad 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