Minutes, IBIS Quality Committee

29 Jan 2008

11-12 AM EST (8-9 AM PST)

ROLL CALL
  Adam Tambone
  Barry Katz, SiSoft
  Benny Lazer
  Benjamin P Silva
  Bob Cox, Micron
* Bob Ross, Teraspeed Consulting Group
  Brian Arsenault
* David Banas, Xilinx
* Eckhard Lenski, Nokia Siemens Networks
  Eric Brock
* Guan Tao, Huawei Technologies
  Gregory R Edlund
  Hazem Hegazy
  John Figueroa
  John Angulo, Mentor Graphics
  Katja Koller, Nokia Siemens Networks
  Kevin Fisher
  Kim Helliwell, LSI Logic
  Lance Wang, IOMethodology
  Lynne Green
* Mike LaBonte, Cisco Systems
  Mike Mayer, SiSoft
  Moshiul Haque, Micron Technology
  Peter LaFlamme
  Randy Wolff, Micron Technology
  Radovan Vuletic, Qimonda
  Robert Haller, Enterasys
  Roy Leventhal, Leventhal Design & Communications
  Sherif Hammad, Mentor Graphics
  Todd Westerhoff, SiSoft
  Tom Dagostino, Teraspeed Consulting Group
  Kazuyoshi Shoji, Hitachi
  Sadahiro Nonoyama

Everyone in attendance marked by *

NOTE: "AR" = Action Required.

-----------------------MINUTES ---------------------------
Mike LaBonte conducted the meeting.

Call for patent disclosure:

- No one declared a patent.

AR Review:

- Mike invite Walter Katz to talk about measurements BIRDs
  - No reply yet, probably busy until after DesignCon.

New items:

- David: are Vinl/Vinh supposed to agree with worst case datasheet values?
  - How do the range of values in the data sheet correspond to Vinl/Vinh?
  - For example, LVCMOS does not differentiate between DC and AC
    - 0.8V an 2.0V are worst case TTL numbers
    - This implies that these should be used for Vinl/Vinh
- Eckhard: NSX assumes worst case Vinl/Vinh
- Look at IQ spec 5.2.2, "[Model] Vinl and Vinh reasonable"
- David: [Model] Vinl and Vinh values are normally worst case
  - Bob: this is a dilemma
- David showed an example:

  Xilinx LVCMOS:
  [Model]
  Vinl = 0.76
  Vinh = 2.2
  [Model Spec]
  Vinl 0.76 0.96 0.58
  Vinh 2.2  2.0  2.3

  Micron DQ:
  [Model]
  Vinl = 0.575
  Vinh = 0.925
  [Model Spec]
  Vinl 0.575 0.5375 0.6125
  Vinh 0.925 0.7125 0.7875

- These are contradictory.
- Mike: should we write a BIRD?
  - Bob: IBIS-ATM BIRDs will rewrite much of this
  - The [Model] section could suggest using [Model Spec] or
    [Receiver Thresholds] instead
  - Some discussion of forward referencing in the IBIS spec
- Mike: if Vinl/Vinh are becoming deprecated, maybe they should not
  be "required"
- Bob: Vinl/Vinh are actually required in some cases by the parser
  - IBISCHK probably issues a warning, not sure
  - Mike: the actual defaults missing Vinl/Vinh depend on the tool
- We agreed that a BIRD to clarify Vinl/Vinh in [Model] would be good

AR: David draft a BIRD to clarify [Model] Vinl/Vinh

- No meeting next week due to DesignCON

Next meeting:

12 Feb 2008
11-12 AM EST (8-9 AM PST)

Meeting ended at 12:09 PM Eastern Time.