================================================================================ 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=0hiwJnSvAEHHWvZiS4r62cvLC0jWH5KDPZoPCAxGnTU&s=JVWBdlw6j45DLTWt05X2sUiQZhEAw4SbR3EYMFgPUhI&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=0hiwJnSvAEHHWvZiS4r62cvLC0jWH5KDPZoPCAxGnTU&s=d3inp3dCMp9tAepNNKlJ6Yuo48sHgC1mEOQPOsH87ws&e= ================================================================================ Attendees from November 18, 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 convened the meeting. No patents were declared. Justin took minutes. Review of Minutes: - Michael called for review of the minutes from the October 28, 2020 meeting. Michael displayed the minutes. Randy moved to approve the minutes. Arpad seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Michael to move the definition of designators to section 13. - Michael asked if this was closed in the most recent draft. Randy replied we left this open for Michael to review and confirm. Michael will review this [AR]. - Randy to propose text for when EMD parts would not be needed. - Randy commented we allow for the case with no EMD parts, and there is a statement to cover this. This is done in BIRD202.1. - Randy to submit the current EMD draft as BIRD202.1 to the IBIS Open Forum. - Done. Opens: - Arpad sent an email with a list of editorial issues in BIRD202.1. BIRD202.1 Comments: Michael asked if the BIRD that was submitted has been edited. Arpad replied he only added comments and did not change the text. He went through most of the document, but he did not read the complete document. He noted some of the comments are not important. Bob asked if we want to call this BIRD202.2 draft1. Michael agreed. Michael noted there are some comments on page 3. Arpad noted these are in a deleted section and can be ignored. The first comment from Arpad is on page 7. There is a mention of the word "interfaces". We do not define "interfaces", and it is used frequently. Michael asked if it is the same for the Interconnect section. Bob replied, no, it is different, as in Interconnect, we have interfaces at pins, pads, and buffers. Michael asked if this is confusing, since we use "interfaces" in both sections and mean different things. Bob replied we have two interfaces for EMD Pin List and Designator Pin List. He suggested the word "boundaries" could be used. Michael noted there are a large number of instances of "interfaces". Arpad suggested to think about this. Michael stated the next comment is on page 13. Arpad noted we are not consistent with the phrasing of the bus_label related sentences. In the highlight section, we are saying "are connected", and in the commented section, we are saying they "may be connected". He asked if this difference is intentional, since one is for I/Os and the other is for rails. He suggested that the second one should be "are connected". Bob asked if they are one terminal or two terminals. In the model, only I/O pins are brought out by pin_names even though they have the same signal_name. The I/O pins can have the same signal_name, but the pin_names make the connections to the terminals. Randy asked if they are not connected, until this is done. Bob replied this is correct. The connection is through the model. Michael asked if we need make the distinction between the explicit vs. implicit connections. Bob replied we cover the types of connections. Michael asked if there would be any circumstances where the same signal_names would not be connected. Arpad commented the connection is done by the model, but the signal_name can still make a logical connection. Arpad noted, on page 13, the word "can" should be change to "may". Arpad also asked if the word "or" should be after EMD Pin List. Michael was not sure this made sense. He suggested to change the parenthetical to commas. On page 21, the description of the [EMD Model] keyword is the same as the [Begin EMD] keyword. Michael suggested to change the description to an electrical model. Arpad commented the second part of the sentence does not make sense. Michael suggested to say it "marks the beginning of the content and connectivity description of an electrical model". Randy noted this is also defined on page 6 in the introduction. Randy suggested to copy this sentence as a starting point. Michael copied the sentence and made adjustments to the phrasing. Arpad commented, on page 25, the section 13.4 is a high-level, big picture section. He thought the highlighted text is out of place, as it follows the rules. Michael asked where this could be placed. Arpad replied this could go in the introduction. Michael stated the section goes into a lot of details on the rules. He asked if we might want to break up the text. Bob noted the terms have not been defined if we were to move this section to the introduction. Arpad asked if the instance of the word "node" on page 25 means "terminal". Randy agreed it would make sense to say "terminal". Michael made this change. Arpad asked what is meant by "EMD terminal". Randy replied these are the terminal lines. Arpad stated the question is regarding the phrase "terminals may be" and if the interfaces are the terminals. Randy commented the interface is a group of terminals. Michael noted there are different contexts. Arpad asked if this is intended to define the interface. He suggested to keep this comment and come back to it. Arpad noted, on page 26, we reference the [Define EMD] keyword, which is not defined. Michael asked if this should be [Begin EMD]. Arpad asked if this rule should be for the [EMD Pin List] and [Designator Pin List]. Arpad stated there are more comments on page 27 regarding "terminals" vs. "nodes". Arpad noted on page 27 there is a redundant sentence. Michael agreed to delete it. Michael will review the bin list [AR]. Randy asked if we will have a meeting next week. Arpad suggested to cancel, as the ATM meeting is canceled. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be December 2. Curtis 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