================================================================================ 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=d_9aBv1_RMUgivx10Gbz8Lx-eTvyvyrdCi9SJzQws0c&s=fkboFa_iQDaurlQ9b9AA5MqANBzG4Jyy7K5UD_COZ0U&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=d_9aBv1_RMUgivx10Gbz8Lx-eTvyvyrdCi9SJzQws0c&s=xQo6is0Zk1HwOhxaF7Xm2FHBtWws6R3uSoChVSUbtag&e= ================================================================================ Attendees from October 21, 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* Randy Wolff convened the meeting. No patents were declared. Justin Butterfield took minutes. Review of Minutes: - Randy called for review of the minutes from the October 14, 2020 meeting. Randy displayed the minutes. Curtis moved to approve the minutes. Arpad seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Michael to check if the most recent drafts have been posted to the website. - Randy asked if this has been done. Arpad noted the latest posted is draft13. Randy suggested to keep this open, and he will follow up with Steve [AR]. - Michael to move the definition of designators to section 13. - Randy was not sure if this has been done. He was not sure what was required. He suggested to keep this open [AR]. - Michael to send out EMD draft 28. - Randy reported this was done. Opens: - None. EMD Draft28 Review: Randy displayed EMD draft28 and saved it as draft29. Bob had sent a document with proposed changes. Randy has integrated those changes into this draft. Bob had changed "part" to "part_name entry" in several instances. There was a significant rewrite on page 11 in the [EMD Parts] Usage Rules. Bob also deleted one sentence which was redundant. Arpad asked if the word "entry" is required in the description sentence, as this is not consistent with other keywords. Randy agreed to delete this. Bob commented it is an entry under the column header, but he agreed we are not consistent on this. Randy commented the description is describing the concept. Randy commented there are other minor rewordings in the [EMD Parts] Usage Rules. He suggested for everyone to read through this text. Arpad asked if the word "different" can be changed to "other". Randy agreed. Arpad suggested to combine the first two highlighted paragraphs into one paragraph. He also suggested to remove the highlighted text. Curtis asked what the term "indirectly" means in the context of the same EMD. Bob stated it gets confusing, since the [EMD Parts] keyword can be in a single EMD file. Arpad asked if we can make a circular loop. Bob replied we cannot. The reason is the parts keyword has a line that has the file. Arpad suggested to remove the phrase: "in the same .emd file." Bob noted there is a limit of 6 levels of hierarchy. Randy asked if EBD had this restriction. Bob was not sure. Randy was okay with this restriction. On page 13, Randy highlighted a section, which was rewritten into one paragraph. Bob and Randy recommended to remove most of the second paragraph. Arpad asked about the phrase "will be useful". Randy suggested to change this to "are useful". Bob noted this is part of the Aggressor_Only connection rules, but it is too early in the document to get into these details. Randy commented the deleted text in the second paragraph is stated elsewhere. Bin List Review: Randy noted item #1, regarding the use of the word "connected", has been discussed. Bob noted section 13.6 has been reviewed, but we need to be precise throughout the document. Randy suggested to keep this open. For item #2, Randy noted we have the comprehensive example in section 13.5 that shows extend nets. On page 7, we also describe extended nets. Randy asked if we can reference the figures in section 13.7 rather than repeat them. Bob commented the extended net rules are difficult to read. Randy asked if it would be helpful to point out the examples in section 13.5. Arpad suggested this is not necessary, as it should be understood this is the introduction and more details will follow. Bob commented we are defining extended to mean two things, where parallel terminations are not necessarily an exception. Randy agreed you would not change net names when you have parallel terminations. Bob suggested to delete the parallel terminations text. Arpad agreed. Bob suggested this section could be rewritten to say extended nets can be modeled two ways. Randy thought it is okay as is. Randy noted item #2 is not needed. Randy noted, for item #3, the phrase "Pins may be terminals" does not exist. He marked this as verified in draft 29. Randy noted we will need to discuss item #4 with Michael. For item #5, we have rewritten this section and reviewed the examples. Randy suggested to mark this as done. Randy stated item #6 is done. Bob agreed, but the Interconnect section has this issue. Randy said item #23 is related to the use of "pin_name" vs. "pin name". Bob asked if we are consistent on this. Arpad asked about one instance on page 10, where we talk about the pin_name length. Randy suggested to say pin_name entry, and we need to be consistent with adding the word "entry" after signal_name, pin_name, and bus_label. Arpad noted we have the rule for the 8 characters pin_name length twice. Randy thought we can delete the second instance of this rule on page 13. Bob noted we need this for both the [Designator Pin List] keyword and the [EMD Pin List] keyword. Arpad asked if we should say the pin_name portion cannot exceed 8 characters and move this to the first paragraph. Randy noted we have both "pin_name" and "pin name" in the document, and he asked if this is a problem. He was not sure how this relates to signal_name. Randy noted there are no instances of "signal name", while we use "signal_name" throughout. Randy thought this item is okay. Arpad agreed. Randy marked item #23 as complete. For item #24, Randy commented there is a definition for Designator Pin that was added recently. Randy commented, for item #28 regarding ".emd file" vs. "EMD file", we resolved this on page 7 and in other cases. Randy marked this as done. For item #29, Randy reviewed the keyword hierarchy diagram, and he marked this as done. Randy will add the regular Interconnect meeting participants to the Requestor list [AR], since this was his suggestion. Randy would like to submit the EMD BIRD before the IBIS Open Forum meeting on October 30th. Randy suggested for everyone to review the current draft for discussion next week. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be October 28. Arpad moved to adjourn. Curtis 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