IBIS Macromodel Task Group Meeting date: 20 May 2008 Members (asterisk for those attending): Ambrish Varma, Cadence Design Systems * Anders Ekholm, Ericsson * Arpad Muranyi, Mentor Graphics Corp. Barry Katz, SiSoft * Bob Ross, Teraspeed Consulting Group * Brad Brim, Sigrity * Brad Griffin, Cadence Design Systems David Banas, Xilinx Donald Telian, consultant Doug White, Cisco Systems Essaid Bensoudane, ST Microelectronics * Fangyi Rao, ??? Ganesh Narayanaswamy, ST Micro Gang Kang, Sigrity Hemant Shah, Cadence Design Systems Ian Dodd Joe Abler, IBM * John Angulo, Mentor Graphics John Shields, Mentor Graphics Ken Willis, Cadence Design Systems Kumar Lance Wang, Cadence Design Systems Luis Boluna, Cisco * Michael Mirmak, Intel Corp. * Mike LaBonte, Cisco Systems Mike Steinberger, SiSoft Mustansir Fanaswalla, Xilinx Patrick O'Halloran, Tiburon Design Automation Paul Fernando, NCSU Radek Biernacki, Agilent (EESof) * Randy Wolff, Micron Technology Ray Comeau, Cadence Design Systems Richard Mellitz, Intel Richard Ward, Texas Instruments * Sam Chitwood, Sigrity Sanjeev Gupta, Agilent Shangli Wu, Cadence * Sid Singh, Extreme Networks Stephen Scearce, Cisco Systems Steve Pytel, Ansoft Syed Huq, Cisco Systems Syed Sadeghi, ST Micro * Terry Jernberg, Cadence Design Systems * Todd Westerhoff, SiSoft Vikas Gupta, Xilinx Vuk Borich, Agilent * Walter Katz, SiSoft * Zhen Mu, Cadence -------------------------- Call for patent disclosure: - No one declared a patent. ----- Opens: ------------- Review of ARs: - Walter send "ICM vs EMC" to Mike for web posting - Done - Michael Mirmak list pros and cons of ICM and EMD - No update - David Banas report Xilinx position on LTI assumption for SerDes - No update - Arpad: Write parameter passing syntax proposal (BIRD draft) for *-AMS models in IBIS that is consistent with the parameter passing syntax of the AMI models - TBD - TBD: Propose a parameter passing syntax for the SPICE - [External ...] also? - TBD - Arpad: Review the documentation (annotation) in the macro libraries. - Deferred until a demand arises or we have nothing else to do ------------- New Discussion: Issues found with Cadence RX model: - Results not correct when GetWave() called multiple times. - Arpad: Do we agree that GetWave() allows multiple calls? - Yes, general agreement. - Arpad: Should we clarify the documentation? - Todd: We may not need a BIRD right now. - Terry: Our tool supports multiple calls, but the RX is just a sample. - This will be fixed eventually. - It will not be done in a few weeks, but will not take years either. - Arpad: This may mislead users - Terry Better documentation should eliminate the confusion - Bob: Documentation is a good starting point - Others can contribute more sample models. - Arpad: We may be able to create a sample model, but not right now. - Arpad: Should the model be taken down from the web site? - No Michael M: What should the scope be for a standardized spice? - Arpad: It would be foolish to start a new SPICE from scratch - Don Telian had proposed building from Berkeley SPICE - Michael M: We should start by deciding feature sets, not syntax - Walter: in Berkeley SPICE we have: 1) topology netlist 2) options and controls - We should discuss only the topology part - Michael M: We need to draw a line where topology ends - Arpad: we get these issues figuring out how to connect IBIS with ICM - Don T proposal was to model active circuits - Mike L: What we are discussion sounds similar to our macro library - Sam: We need active components to create mutual resistor - Walter: Then we should simply define a mutual resistor - Bob: But there is no reason to exclude controlled sources - Michael M: So we need to define primitives? - Using lower level elements is more flexible, more enduring - IBIS should have defined a language, not a format Terry: Was the agenda for the last meeting sent? - Michael M: It was sent to ibis-users - Terry: Could agendas be posted to the web site? - Michael M: Updates are too slow Next meeting: 27 May 2008 12:00pm PT -----------