Minutes, IBIS Quality Committee 31 May 2011 11:00-12:00 EST (08:00-09:00 PST) ROLL CALL Cisco Systems: * Mike LaBonte Ericsson: * Anders Ekholm Green Streak Programs: Lynne Green Huawei Technologies: Guan Tao IBM: Bruce Archambeault IOMethodology: * Lance Wang Mentor Graphics: John Angulo Micron Technology: * Moshiul Haque, Randy Wolff Nokia Siemens Networks: * Eckhard Lenski Signal Consulting Group: Tim Coyle Teraspeed Consulting Group: * Bob Ross Texas Instruments: Pavani Jella Everyone in attendance marked by * NOTE: "AR" = Action Required. -----------------------MINUTES --------------------------- Mike LaBonte conducted the meeting. Call for opens and IBIS related patent disclosures: - No one declared a patent. AR Review: - None New items: - Mike showed the - Slide 3: - Anders: Manfred said it was a lot of work, could use automation - Slide 4: - Anders: He did not talk about the IQ Excel checklist - Bob: This was about IQ - Slide 5: - Bob: This is about [Test Load] - Eckhard: He talked about concentrating information - Parameters need to be checked - Slide 6: - Anders: "No need to simulate" means the waveforms are already there - Mike: Why is a new keyword needed? - Anders: Not sure, maybe stimulus limitation - Slide 7: - Slide 8: - Slide 9: - Slide 10: - Anders: Number of data points is a problem - Zipping might help - Will be larger if not a simple edge stimulus - Slide 11: - Anders: This is good input for us - Mike: Not sure if EDA vendors will implement the automation - Anders: Right now the GWF data are not available - Bob: Any error might be in either the IBIS data or the simulator - This is qualifying the simulator too - Lance: Slide 6 might be about embedding the IBIS simulated waveforms - Mike: That would allow for cheating - Anders: It would allow vendors to show that they checked - Lance: There is a question of which IBIS simulator to use - Anders: Manfred felt it would be HSPICE There will be no meeting next week due to the DAC IBIS Summit Lance: There is an issue about test load - Bob: There is a call hierarchy problem - Test Load should be parallel with Test Data - Test Data should be top level - Mike: At the last Open Forum I said our group could look at this - We might solve the bug by changing the spec - No code change might be needed - Bob: The parser is more generous than the spec - Test load should be outside the model - Mike: Should Test Data be outside the model? - Bob: Inside - Lance: It should be outside for differential - Mike: All keywords needed to make them top level are there - The spec text does not say it is scoped as the tree shows - Anders: The tree structure is an alternate view, is not binding - Should we write a BIRD? - Bob: Would it be OK if [Test Data] was in a [Model]? - Anders: What if the Driver_model pointed to a different [Model]? Anders: What is the BUG 104 bug? - Mike: It is a name space problem - According to the hierarchy every Test Data could have the same name - But the parser rejects it - Anders: So even the parser is wrong - If we change the spec the parser bug will not be a bug - Every Test Data name will have to be different - Bob: Greg Edlund was driving this at the time - Adding differential capability complicated it - Mike: I could draft a BIRD - Bob: We need to run experiments on the parser - See if Test Load can be before Test Data - Mike: Also if either keyword can be before any [Model] has appeared - Bob: We should support scoping both inside and outside of Model - Mike: We should ask at the summit AR: Mike draft BIRD to fix Test keyword scoping Anders: Should we invite Tim Coyle? AR: Mike invite Tim Coyle to the June 14 meeting Next meetings: - Next meetings June 14 and June 21 June 14 agenda: - Meeting ended at 12:20 Eastern Time.