IBIS Macromodel Task Group

Meeting date: 20 January 2009

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
* Eckhard Lenski, Nokia-Siemens Networks
  Essaid Bensoudane, ST Microelectronics
  Fangyi Rao, Agilent
  Ganesh Narayanaswamy, ST Micro
  Gang Kang, Sigrity
  Hemant Shah, Cadence Design Systems
  Ian Dodd, Agilent
  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 Systems
* Michael Mirmak, Intel Corp.
* Mike LaBonte, Cisco Systems
  Mike Steinberger, SiSoft
* Mustansir Fanaswalla, Xilinx
  Patrick O'Halloran, Tiburon Design Automation
  Paul Fernando, NCSU
  Pavani Jella, TI
* 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 Design Systems
  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 Design Systems

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opens:

--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:

- No one declared a patent.

-------------
Review of ARs:

- Walter: Draft BIRD proposal for new keywords
  - No update

- Michael M:  Confirm with Synopsys whether "used by permission" can be used
              as the official indicator on relevant documents.
  - Done! We were given a copyright phrase to use.

- 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:

Michael M: The SPICE specification document is ready for posting

AR: Michael M send updated IBIS Interconnect SPICE syntax document to Mike L for posting

IBIS Interconnect SPICE:
- Walter's evaluation criteria:
  - Can vendors produce these models?
  - Can consumers use them?

Michael M has responded by email to Walter's proposal:
- Does IBIS Interconnect SPICE solve the packaging problem?
  - Walter: Mapping of circuits to pins is needed
- Michael M: Point 5 was written because we need to limit our scope to avoid
  making the project unachievable.
  - Starting with IBIS Interconnect SPICE might be OK as long as we don't try
    to solve every problem with it
- Arpad: Should we prioritize this list?
  - Final Stage subckt is important
  - Michael M: There was pushback on Touchstone for not having some features

Walter showed a presentation:
- The types of enhancements are:
  - SPICE based package model
  - Measurement rules
  - Things that affect simulations (eg. Final Stage subckt)
- Maybe we could discuss this at DesignCon
- Michael M: Will we discuss measurement next week?
  - Walter: How about now?

[Specification] keyword proposal
- File would have to exist on an IBIS website
- Randy had discuss JEDEC 79-2C previously
  - The specification is complex nd has to be shown with a picture
- IEEE 802.3ap
  - Polynomial based mask
  - Requires sequential operations
- John: Then we have to focus on the standard, not individual parts
  - Walter: Companies can use their own specifications
- David: Is this the first time we are requiring human interpretation?
  - That might not be a good direction
  - A new specification is needed each time a new value appears
- Arpad: Maybe a specification name should be used instead of a file name
- Walter: Sometimes the specification is a subset of a file
- Michael M: Object:
  - Proprietary specifications
  - Parts of specifications are difficult to control
  - Is partial compliance allowed?
  - It would be tough to validate compliance
- Michael M: options:
  - AMS coding
  - Specify individual measurements
- Walter: For example there are multiple meanings of Vinl_ac
- John: Defining the parts of specifications that apply could be tough
- Arpad: We could point to internal specifications to get around proprietary
  - Michael M: An AMI black box does not have to be disclosed
- Walter: An AMI RX can do this today
  - Arpad: But the output interpretation is not defined
  - Michael M: We see-saw between two concepts:
    - Writing code is demanding for model author
    - Data for existing structures loses flexibility
  - Walter: AMI can do both
- Bob: We should catalog code-based representations of specifications
  - An analogy to [Specification] is simply giving a part number, no pin list
- Todd: It may be difficult to reduce standards down to an implementation
- Arpad: Do we want specification names or file names?
  - Walter: It can be an indirect reference
  - John: The tools will have to interpret on the fly
  - Walter: The tools will have a table of existing implementations
  - Walter: It would help if JEDEC was more computer readable
- Mike L: JEDEC gives only envelope parameters:
  - Individual vendor parts deviate from JEDEC
  - Walter: Vendors must certify that it works on your system

Bob: Reminder: DesignCon summit attendees should register soon



Next meeting: 27 January 2009 12:00pm PT

-----------