IBIS Macromodel Task Group Meeting date: 08 February 2011 Members (asterisk for those attending): Agilent: * Fangyi Rao * Radek Biernacki Ansoft: Chris Herrick Danil Kirsanov Ansys: * Samuel Mertens * Dan Dvorjak Deepak Ramaswamy Jianhua Gu Cadence Design Systems: Terry Jernberg * Ambrish Varma Celsionix: Kellee Crisafulli Cisco Systems: * Mike LaBonte Stephen Scearce Ashwin Vasudevan Ericsson: Anders Ekholm IBM: Greg Edlund Intel: * Michael Mirmak LSI Logic: Wenyi Jin Mentor Graphics: * John Angulo Vladimir Dmitriev-Zdorov Zhen Mu * Arpad Muranyi Micron Technology: Randy Wolff Nokia-Siemens Networks: Eckhard Lenski Sigrity: Brad Brim Kumar Keshavan Ken Willis SiSoft: * Walter Katz Mike Steinberger Todd Westerhoff ST Micro: Syed Sadeghi Teraspeed Consulting Group: Scott McMorrow * Bob Ross TI: Casey Morrison Alfred Chong Vitesse Semiconductor: Eric Sweetman Xilinx: Mustansir Fanaswalla The meeting was lead by Arpad Muranyi ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Opens: - None -------------------------- Call for patent disclosure: - None ------------- Review of ARs: - Bob draft BIRD for Tables - No progress yet - Bob investigate strings issue - Emailed Atul to investigate - Arpad finish example in BIRD 116-118 presentation - Done - Arpad send ATM update to Bob - Done - Arpad submit Typos BIRD to IBIS Open Forum - Done ------------- New Discussion: Arpad conducted a task list review: - Notes on this are in the agenda: Remaining Task List items: ========================== Row 18: What is the ambiguity between Format and Text Strings? - waiting for an answer Row 21: According to the BNF, the Format = Table syntax is invalid. - If Format is removed, this s not a problem, but if Format is there the problem still exists. Do we need to fix this? - we will address this when talking about Table Row 22: The syntax for a leaf is: (Row 22 in Task List) : ( whitespace ) So in a Table which is written like this: (-50 -0.1 1e-35), -50 is actually a parameter name, i.e. a string, not a value. -deprecate Table back to List? - we will address this when talking about Table Row 23/24: Fix the two tables to reflect what is in the text - need someone to volunteer to write a BIRD - Bob agreed to do this after the 2010 Asian Summit Row 25: Define relationship between Type and Format - discuss Walter's suggestions ***** - need someone to volunteer to write a BIRD AR: Ambrish draft BIRD for relationship between Type and Format Row 26: What is Row 26 all about? Is it the same as Row 47? - waiting for an answer Row 33: Is AMI_Init restricted to change first column of impulse_matrix only? - this needs to be discussed Arpad showed the task list spreadsheet: - Arpad: Rows 46 and 47 are the same thing? - Walter: Yes - Arpad: Will this BIRD take care of row 47? - Walter: Except for Bounded Uncorrelated Jitter (BUJ) - People disagree on what that is - Tables can be used in conjunction with Tx_Jitter - Can represent that kind of jitter - Type should apply to the second column - Tx_Jitter should support Table only - Arpad updated row 46 (See BIRD 123) - Row 33 will be discussed in analog - Walter: No one defined the flow to use impulse responses - Kumar can explain the rest - Arpad: There is disagreement on whether AMI_Init should modify it's input - Walter: The rest of the columns are aggressor crosstalk contributions - How can Init modify that if it does not know the aggressor channels? - Ambrish: Agree - Walter: The tool needs to know if it is synchronous or asynchronous or mezzo-synchronous - The phase is needed for sync AR: Arpad check with Kumar and Vladimir on crosstalk in AMI_Init Row 35: Clarify questions about impulse response - Arpad: This needs to be discussed Row 46/47: Remove certain parameters and keywords - Arpad: This needs to be discussed - Walter: The proposal is based on a very large number of models - BIRD 123 has list of parameters useful to vendors - Other parameters should be deprecated or defined properly - Someone could volunteer to write a BIRD Arpad: Any questions about Walter's amendments to BIRD 122? Walter showed an email on BIRDs 116-125 - Walter: Lot of discussion about BIRD 126-125 - The unity gain element issue does not matter much - We should have called [Algorithmic Model] [Advanced Model] - This would have an AMI_File parameter - This could have AMI_Model_Type instead of guessing the type - Arpad: How does this make a connection analog models? - Walter: We have to look at how it can be done in Verilog/VHDL AMS etc. - It would be OK if it was in [External Model] - Arpad: Everything in IBIS is moving into AMI - Walter: This gets around typ/min/max issues - IBIS is slow to adapt to new technologies - AMI is widely accepted - Arpad: We have to treat this as a new idea and get other things done first - John: If we can parameterize IBIS 5.0 that would be great - Arpad: Is this totally new or a replacement? - Walter: A replacement - Not many vendors use [External Model] - Arpad: If it is a new keyword no one will be supporting it - There is at least some support for EM - Walter: No one is supporting ISS yet - Bob: We need to get comment on this - Walter: Todd will be editing our position a bit AR: Walter send BIRDs 116-125 position email to list - Arpad: We could discuss Kukal's comments on BIRD 121: - Kukal asked if BIRD 121 should have file names or only search paths? - The spec says there can be a path - We need clarification from Kukal - Walter: Some models only work at a specific samples/bit ratio - Fangyi: Supporting_Files is just a way to see the files? - Walter: It is to make sure all needed files have been imported - Mike: The quality group felt paths should not be used - Walter: In this case the DLL needs to find the files in a relative place - Mike: We would have to be clear about which slash type to separate paths - Walter: We always use forward slashes ------------- Next meeting: 15 Feb 2011 12:00pm PT Next agenda: 1) BIRD 121-124 discussions ------------- IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List: 1) Simulator directives