====================================================================== 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 July 12 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio) ANSYS Curtis Clark Cadence Design Systems Bradley Brim Cisco David Siadat Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak* Keysight Technologies Radek Biernacki, Ming Yan Mentor, A Siemens Company Arpad Muranyi* Micron Technology Justin Butterfield*, Randy Wolff SAE ITC Maureen Lemankiewicz, Logen Johnson Signal Integrity Software Walter Katz*, Mike LaBonte* Teraspeed Labs Bob Ross* University of Aveiro in Portugal Wael Dghais 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 26 meeting. Mike LaBonte moved to approve the minutes. Arpad Muranyi seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Michael to submit BIRD 189.3 and BIRD 186 with the approved changes to the IBIS Open Forum. - Michael reported this was done. Opens: - None BIRD189.5 draft 1: Arpad shared BIRD189.5 draft 1 with changes suggested by Mike and himself. Mike noted that the comments for this group to review are noted in the document comments while simpler changes have already been made. Arpad noted that these were simple language issues and typos which were corrected. Arpad stated that in the [Bus Label] description some language was added to clarify the bus_label names. He noted that the word "terminal" was incorrectly used in this definition, since terminals are already defined in the subcircuit model. Arpad mentioned there was also a question about the meaning of the sentence "A bus_label may be defined also by the [Pin Mapping] keywords." He commented that bus_label is not explicitly defined in the IBIS specification already. Arpad commented that in the Rules of Precedence section he added that [External Circuit] and [Node Declarations] are mutually exclusive. Bob Ross asked since [External Circuit] requires [Node Declarations], if this is redundant. Mike commented that the parser would not flag [External Circuit] without [Node Declarations] as an error. Arpad stated that his intent is that we need to explicitly exclude using [Node Declarations] from being used with [Interconnect Model]s. Mike noted on page 10 the word "interface" is used referring to the connection locations, but this does not line up with the diagram. The word "location" is used instead. Arpad also noted that the phrase "interconnect rail" in this section did not make sense. Michael stated that the reason the word "interface" was used was to refer to the node between two sections of interconnect. Arpad commented that the main issue he has with this section is with the use of the word "terminals" which is used incorrectly to refer to nodes. Mike noted that terminals refers to the external connection points of a subcircuit, while nodes refers to the connection points of the circuit. Mike proposed to use the phase "interface location". Arpad clarified that he does not have an issue with the word "interface". Mike asked about the phrase "silicon die". Arpad thought just the word "die" should be sufficient. Michael agreed. Arpad suggested to delete the list of Interconnect Model Set possibilities on page 11. Bob agreed. On page 17, Bob suggested to delete the word "or" in the last bullet item. On page 18, Arpad noted that the references to currents have been removed and the paragraph now focuses on the definition of voltage. Mike commented on page 18 that the word "integer" is incorrectly used for the unused port impedance. Bob suggested to replace "integer" with "numeric argument greater than zero" in this section. Arpad stated that on page 19 the term "GND" should be clarified. Arpad noted that on page 25 the word "name" was add to the die pad, pin, buffer terminal rules. Arpad noted in Example 4 the file names for the touchstone file names were reversed for die and package. Arpad also asked about the VSS for the reference on this example. Mike suggested to take up this topic next time. Bob also noticed that pad_name should be changed to pin_name in the first part of the example. Michael mentioned he will not be able to host the meeting next week. He suggested that a draft 2 be issued and sent to the reflector, then we can review the items that need to be reviewed. Mike moved to adjourn. Arpad seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection.