IBIS Macromodel Task Group Meeting date: 21 September 2010 Members (asterisk for those attending): Adge Hawes, IBM * 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 Chris Herrick, Ansoft Chris McGrath, Synopsys Danil Kirsanov, Ansoft David Banas, Xilinx Deepak Ramaswany, Ansoft Donald Telian, consultant Doug White, Cisco Systems Eckhard Lenski, Nokia-Siemens Networks Eckhard Miersch, Sigrity Essaid Bensoudane, ST Microelectronics Y Fangyi Rao, Agilent Ganesh Narayanaswamy, ST Micro Gang Kang, Sigrity Hemant Shah, Cadence Design Systems Ian Dodd, consultant Jerry Chuang, Xilinx Joe Abler, IBM * John Angulo, Mentor Graphics John Shields, Mentor Graphics Ken Willis, Sigrity Kellee Crisafulli, Celsionix Kumar Keshavan, Sigrity 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 Komow, Cadence Design Systems Richard Mellitz, Intel Richard Ward, Texas Instruments Samuel Mertens, Ansoft Sam Chitwood, Sigrity Sanjeev Gupta, Agilent Scott McMorrow, Teraspeed Consulting Group Shangli Wu, Cadence Design Systems Sid Singh, Extreme Networks Stephen Scearce, Cisco Systems Steve Kaufer, Mentor Graphics Steve Pytel, Ansoft Syed Huq, Cisco Systems Syed Sadeghi, ST Micro Ted Mido, Synopsys Terry Jernberg, Cadence Design Systems Todd Westerhoff, SiSoft Vladimir Dmitriev-Zdorov, Mentor Graphics Vikas Gupta, Xilinx Vuk Borich, Agilent * Walter Katz, SiSoft Wenyi Jin, LSI Logic Zhen Mu, Mentor Graphics ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Opens: - Arpad: Kumaran Krishnasamy asked for jitter params for PCIe Gen3 - Will Walter's BIRD handle this? - Walter: This is about the compliance of a channel - This is not about actual buffer operation - IBIS has stayed away from that kind of thing - Arpad: This is a spec parameter not a model parameter? - Walter: Yes - Arpad: We can table to a later time - Michael M: We need a discussion about having a tech writer work on our spec - Also do we have to use plain text? - The IBIS charter requires transmission in emails by plain text - http://www.eda.org/ibis/docs/eia_org.txt - TechAmerica has a tech writer we can use - We can ask to have a template format developed -------------------------- Call for patent disclosure: - none ------------- Review of ARs: - Arpad: Make Flow BIRD corrections and email - Done - Ken: Send email to group about Format - Done - Ken: Talk with Walter about Flow BIRD issues - Done - Ambrish: Make Flow BIRD changes and email - Done - 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: 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: Arpad showed the Min/Typ/Max BIRD: - Equal signs added back to range definition - Min should be allowed to equal Max - Bob: This is sufficient - Mike L motioned to vote to approve this BIRD for release to the Open Forum: - Bob seconded - Roll call votes: Y Cadence Design Systems Y Ericsson Y Mentor Graphics Corp. Y Teraspeed Consulting Group Y Agilent Y Intel Corp. Y Cisco Systems Y Micron Technology Y SiSoft - The motion passed Arpad showed an email with his rewrite of the Flow BIRD: - Arpad: It was easier for me to rewrite the BIRD than to suggest changes - Arpad: Step 3 in section 6b is the issue - Ambrish: There is more to that section than the email shows - Arpad showed the BIRD document - Ken: Will this be the new baseline BIRD? - The one I sent last night could be the baseline - Ambrish: I could explain my edits - Changes at the end of section 1 were removed - 2.1 and 2.2 fixed to not talk about system simulation - Section 3 talks about system simulation - Disagree with Arpad's comment on Step 9 - Arpad: It specifies "with the channel impulse response" - Saying what is convolved is misleading - We can discuss this externally - Ken: So 9/20 is the baseline Deprecation: - Arpad: The new flow for 5.1 has no Use_Init_Output at all - We can't claim people can use it going forward in new models - Version numbering could handle this - Walter: A new version param would be OK - The classical definition of deprecation is something we think will no longer be supported at some point - We should just not allow Use_Init_Output, but it requires a version param - Arpad: Should this be applied to other params like Format? - Walter: We don't want to make it too painful to convert to 5.1 - Arpad: Is it acceptable for older models to fail? - Bob: That is the problem - Not all EDA tools are at the same version - Arpad: Will anyone ever want to just put 5.1 on an old file? - No one should do that - Michael M: Model librarians never just renumber models - They might use sections of old models in new files - They might renumber to get better checks - Walter: Using the IBIS version would be a mistake - The .ami file is separate from the IBIS file - Michael M: Agree that can be a problem - Bob: Must EDA vendors support all versions? - Mike: IBIS itself has had that problem - Some files would have commented out content - Walter: Only one model out there uses Use_Init_Output=true && GetWave_Exists=true - Michael M: What if a model is compliant to one version and not others? - Bob: We can declare some params to be no-ops - Michael M: A 5.0 model keyword should be legal forever, until the file becomes 5.1 - Walter: The parser works like that now - The problem is if the IBIS file version dictates how the .ami is parsed - Michael M: We should find out how much work this change will be - Arpad: The 5.1 parser could simply ignore the deprecated keywords - Bob: We should not render older models erroneous - Walter: It's easy to write a parser to ignore Format - Fangyi: What happens if I use a new TX models with an old RX model? - Walter: Use_Init_Output effectively does not exist, it is not an issue - Arpad: If the spec does not cover Format can tools ignore it? - Bob: Everything that is legal should be covered - Arpad: This could complicate writing the spec - Walter: It could be described in one place - Mike: Many specs have a Deprecated Keywords section - Or we could simply ignore all unrecognized keywords - A problem with Format is that keywords under it must be promoted - Arpad: There is a similar level problem with Value - Walter: I had covered this with defaults are for missing items - Default only has meaning for a List - Bob: The parser doesn't check for some of these things - We should make these keywords option for the next release - We have to document the reserved words we have created - Walter: We should go "cold turkey" with a deprecation section - The purpose of deprecation is easy transition - Arpad: It sounds like we agree - Walter: We should vote on this next week Next meeting: 30 September 2010 12:00pm PT -------- IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List: 1) Simulator directives