IBIS Macromodel Task Group Meeting date: 03 May 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 * Curtis Clark Arrow Electronics: * Ian Dodd 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 NetLogic Microsystems: Ryan Couts Nokia-Siemens Networks: * Eckhard Lenski Sigrity: Brad Brim Kumar Keshavan * Ken Willis SiSoft: * Walter Katz Mike Steinberger * Todd Westerhoff * Doug Burns Snowbush IP: Marcus Van Ierssel 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: - Mike: There is a summit meeting next week, will we still have our meeting? - Arpad: How many will be traveling? - Bob: I will not attend - Ambrish: I will not attend - Randy: I will not attend - We will meet next week - Bob will speak on editorial work -------------------------- Call for patent disclosure: - None ------------- Review of ARs: - Bob update syntax clarification BIRD - Update today - Ambrish start a BIRD on task list row 25 - In progress, on hold - Bob write a BIRD on correcting Table 1-3 in the spec. (Row 23). - In progress, on hold ------------- New Discussion: Bob spoke about the new IBIS specification format editorial work: - [Begin Algorithmic Model] will be documented - Editorially it is quite different - New BIRDs are expected - Arpad: Will Walter submit a formal BIRD? - Walter: A BIRD will be drafted for review in the ATM group - Future BIRDs would be submitted as updates to that BIRD - Arpad: Will there be a BIRD for the new AMI section? - Bob: We don't know yet - We have to establish rules for writing it - Arpad: This will be worked on only in the editorial group Arpad showed the Out/InOut BIRD draft: - Arpad: There has been much email discussion - Originally this answered a question about which function returns Out strings - The first BIRD portion addresses that - This should be settled now - The new part is about not allowing returned data to alter simulations - We could put that in a separate BIRD - Walter: Separation would be good - People should give presentations on their views - Arpad: Todd suggested a portability indicator keyword - Radek: It is not just the model, but the combination with the simulator - We only care if it is compliant or not - Ken: It is more about compliance than portability - Todd: "Compliant" is not specific enough - Syed says it is compliant if it uses only IBIS 5.0 syntax - Can I write a model using BIRD 120 today? - Bob: Yes, but that is vendor specific until it is in an approved spec - Radek: It would be good to have it marked as such - Ken: That could be just comments - Todd: Syed would not want it - Michael M: I assume it's compliant if it passes the parser - Bob: The parser only tests against the spec - The spec determines compliance - The parser is not a full test - Scott: It only tests for syntactic compliance - The spec describes functional requirements - Ken: Comments can be added - Radek: Years from now it will change - Do we tell users to check BIRD status? - Todd: Models can't be written to last forever - Compliant is an adjective - The question is "in accordance with" what? - Scott: A BIRD has no legal meaning after the macro committee approves it - It still does not mean it's part of the spec - Arpad: We always call it a BIRD "draft" - Todd: "Legal" implies enforcement - Specification do not have that - Walter: We need to limit this discussion - Todd: We agree that BIRD have no official standing until approved - Motion to split the BIRD in two, separating the highlighted part out - Mike seconded - Some stated they would vote no - Michael M: A roll call vote is needed - Roll call vote: - Votes: Agilent: N Ansys: N Cadence Design Systems: N Cisco Systems: Y IBM: Y Intel: A Mentor Graphics: N Micron Technology: A Nokia-Siemens Networks: A Sigrity: N SiSoft: Y Teraspeed Consulting Group N - 3 Yes, 6 No, 3 Abstain - The motion failed Arpad showed the Table Clarification BIRD draft: - Walter: Ambrish and Bob did a wonderful job - Bob: Tables have to have at least one legitimate entry - Ambrish: "lable2" is spelled wrongly - Bob: We might scrap the paragraph about use of Info as output - We can't have this worded differently in every BIRD - Radek: We should be able to remove it - Bob: We need consistent use of language such as "executable models" - Only one example row is needed for Out parameters - The DLL can output any number of rows - Radek: Does the number of columns have to be the same on every return? - Bob: The number of columns must be specified - Radek: Can the number rows change? - Todd: That is unconstrained - Bob: No statement is made about that - Todd: It should be stated that each row is complete - Arpad: Radek is asking about multiple calls to GetWave - Todd: Does each call have to return data? - Bob: Yes - Arpad: Do we need to allow different numbers of rows? - Ambrish: It depends on use - Walter: We should allow different returns - Ambrish: Some rules in the example should be moved up Walter: I have 3 presentations to give: - Graphic showing where the Jitter BIRD and IBIS5.0 Jitter parameters are applied. - Backchannel Presentation - Analog BIRD - Ambrish: We they be shown next week - Walter: I can do a private review - Scott: I would like to see what you have also Arpad: We should continue our email discussions ------------- Next meeting: 17 May 2011 12:00pm PT Next agenda: 1) Task list item discussions ------------- IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List: 1) Simulator directives