================================================================================ IBIS INTERCONNECT TASK GROUP https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ibis.org_interconnect-5Fwip_&d=DwIGAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=DcQR-qLpQg5lIreuM6-NYECRIAFXt268PRNS5WO043M&m=PUgH_PHr2taWJong8IhLQAb9hoB5oGJGEQ3BOO8MLlo&s=OsKwnWsQQkxQrbM_BTInqZkYO3Jc5dQhudYUB_7C7OY&e= Mailing list: ibis-interconnect@freelists.org Archives at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.freelists.org_archive_ibis-2Dinterconn_&d=DwIGAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=DcQR-qLpQg5lIreuM6-NYECRIAFXt268PRNS5WO043M&m=PUgH_PHr2taWJong8IhLQAb9hoB5oGJGEQ3BOO8MLlo&s=m1S6Z789Ze8r2kfHsAAilWkTxEsARMFkmChjbSnADI8&e= ================================================================================ Attendees from September 30, 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 September 23, 2020 meeting. Michael displayed the minutes. Randy moved to approve the minutes. Bob seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Michael to check if the most recent drafts have been posted to the website [AR]. - Michael noted this will take some time, and he suggested to keep this open. - Michael to move the definition of designators to section 13 [AR]. - Michael requested to keep this open. We started this, but it will need more work. - Michael to send out EMD draft 26. - Michael stated we should go through Randy's comments before sending out this draft. Opens: - None. EMD Draft26 Review: Michael shared draft26 with Randy's comments. The first comment is on page 11 in the example for EMD Parts. The question is, in the third column, if we need to say "define_module" with the underscore. Randy noted this is just a comment for the column headings. Bob noted some of the entries are components and others are modules. He suggested to change "define_module" to "module". Randy noted in the paragraph above we use "define module". Bob commented that component and define module are the next level into the file name. Randy was okay to change this to "module", as this refers to what the EMD defines. Bob was concerned with the terms "define module" and "module-level". Michael noted we only use "define module" in this section, and he suggested to change it to "module name". Bob thought this is not consistent with component, and he suggested to use "module" rather than "module name". Randy asked if we describe the module correctly in Begin EMD. Bob suggested to change Begin EMD to say "name of the module". Michael stated, on page 11, we want to cross reference the highlighted rules. Bob noted the rules are correct, but Arpad had made the comment that these could be combined into one paragraph. Bob was concerned with combining the rules into one paragraph. Michael suggested to come back to this. Randy commented, on page 12, there is a comment about the Required field for EMD Parts. The statement doesn't make sense, as Designator Pin List is required. Bob was concerned we might want to model a case without designators. Randy asked if this was our intention to support this case. Bob suggested we could have a case of a module without any components on it. Michael asked if we want to remove this case. Bob stated he is okay to not support this case. Randy to suggested to remove the conditional statement in the Required field. Michael agreed. Michael stated, on page 12, the comment is suggesting to add a parenthetical for signal_name. Michael made this change. Michael commented, regarding the sentence "Following the [Designator Pin List] keyword are three columns.", there could be four columns. Randy suggested there could two, three, or four columns. Michael noted the sentence is not quite correct. Randy agreed these are column headers. Michael suggested the phrase "the keyword arguments consist of three columns". Randy agreed with this language. Bob suggested to add this to the known issues list for IBIS 7.0 to check for similar language. Bob asked about the rule all EMD pins and Designator pins that have the same signal_name are connected. He suggested this is not always the case. Michael asked if we should say this is for I/O signals. Randy asked if we need this statement here, and he noted the next sentence is related. Michael asked if we can change this to I/O pins. Bob replied, if you have an EMD module that does not describe a signal_name, then it might not be connected. He suggested to say it can be connected. Michael suggested, if we want to change this, we need to specify when they could be connected. Bob noted this is explained later. He was not sure if it is a parser error when every pin is not listed in the designator. Michael commented we are warning the model makers and the tools there could be a connection here. Bob suggested this is defined by the EMD model. Randy noted this is covered in the next sentence. On page 15, Michael asked if the brackets should be used. Randy was in favor of removing the brackets, since these statements are related to the concepts. Michael agreed. Randy noted the second bullet has the same issue. On page 16, Randy suggested to change the word "presented" to "defined". Bob agreed. On page 17, Randy suggested to change the wording for End EMD. Michael agreed. On page 13, Bob commented the sentence "This has nothing to do with the signal_name ..." is not professional language. Randy asked what we are saying here. Michael replied the preceding sentence is about the Designator Pin List defining the connectivity in the EMD. The sentence in question is defining the hierarchy of the signal_names. Randy suggested to say "this does not necessarily match the signal_name in the IBIS component". Michael noted the context is the Designator Pin List, and he asked about the EMD model. Michael suggested the phrase "does not imply". Randy suggested "EMD" should be "EMD module" and "IBIS" should be "IBIS component". Michael suggested to add a highlight and comment to review this later. On page 19, Randy had a comment asking if these rules are in the right section. Michael noted these are various syntax rules. Bob commented these are introductory statements about the rules. Randy stated the section is labeled file syntax requirements, and these sentences are not relates to the file syntax requirements. Michael asked if we can change the section title. Randy thought the rest of the section is about the file syntax requirements. Randy will look at the cross referencing of the rules on page 19 [AR]. On page 20 in the table, the comment is regarding the phrase "see text below". Michael agreed with changing this to "see Section 13.3". On page 21, Randy commented the highlighted sentence is not necessary. There are many keywords which are not permitted. Michael suggested to delete this. Curtis asked if the second sentence was included elsewhere. Randy replied this is defined elsewhere. Michael will send out draft 26 [AR]. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be October 7. 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