IBIS Macromodel Task Group Meeting date: 22 February 2011 Members (asterisk for those attending): Agilent: Fangyi Rao * Radek Biernacki Ansoft: Chris Herrick Danil Kirsanov Ansys: * Samuel Mertens * Dan Dvorscak 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: - Walter: MM is investing new file formats - We might want to use DOC for easier revisions -------------------------- Call for patent disclosure: - None ------------- Review of ARs: - Bob check BIRD 127 for type clarification possibilities - TBD - Bob send draft Tables BIRD to Mike for posting - Done - Ken draft language to clarify handling of multiple channels - In progress - Ambrish draft BIRD for relationship between Type and Format (row 25) - TBD - Working with Bob - May be added to BIRD 127 - Arpad follow up with Kukal on BIRD 121 include file - Done - Bob check what the ambiguity between Format and text strings is, (row 18 in the Task List) - Done - Bob write a BIRD on correcting Table 1-3 in the spec. (Row 23 in the Task List). - in progress ------------- New Discussion: Arpad asked for comments on the Table 1-3 BIRD draft - None Arpad asked for comments on the crosstalk BIRD draft - None We reviewed use of Table format: - Arpad: We need to decide if Table is only for jitter PDF - Bob: Is anyone using PDF? - Todd: People use jitter elements, but not a PDF table - Walter would have more specific feedback - Ambrish: People use Table for single row multi-column data - The first column has no index - It is used as an array - Arpad: Why is List not good enough for that? - Ambrish: List is for picking one value from a set - Radek: It would be good to see some examples of actual use - Bob: The problem is when it is used as an Output - Todd: Models that used it as an array have been re-written - It may not be worth putting much effort into this - Ambrish: There may be no use for Table - Todd: We should look first at what models require for input - Arpad: Are we concerned about legacy or new models? - Ken: It is in new models - Arpad: Walter had suggested using a string - Bob: We have to change the spec for Table anyway - We could make it work as a array - Todd: I will ask Walter if he has other uses for Table AR: Ken and Ambrish send examples of AMI model requiring array input Arpad: Discussion of BIRDs 121, 123, and 124 may have to wait for Walter - BIRD 121 is about files that the DLLs need - Bob: For BIRD 123 I sent a file with AMI reserved parameters listed - Arpad showed the file listing AMI reserved parameter - Bob: Some of these are new - Uncomfortable about some of the defaults - Not sure about Clock Centered, for example - Todd: That just says the default PDF is no jitter - RX Noise is not actually jitter - Jitter is time domain - Noise is voltage domain - Bob: They are related, hard to separate - Arpad: Some parameters affect how you post-process an eye - Output parameters will be produced after Init is called - How will the tool know to change the stimulus? - Todd: TX and RX Init are called before any GetWave - GetWave could return this, but do we want dynamic updates? Arpad: There was much email discussion about Model Specific Output parameters - If we expect tools to do something with it we should write that - Todd: We write it to CSV files - Ambrish: Another tool might not do that - Mike: This is just extra information - The simulation still takes place as expected - Arpad: It is a problem if the spec does not say what to do with it - Todd: We have pushed for this for 4 years - We should make no statement about what to do with it - Ken: The Model Specific parameter could be in Reserved - Then tools would be required to do something it - Arpad: The spec should say the tool has to collect it - Mike: The spec should say tools can ignore Model Specific Outputs ------------- Next meeting: 01 Mar 2011 12:00pm PT Next agenda: 1) Task list item discussions ------------- IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List: 1) Simulator directives