IBIS Macromodel Task Group Meeting date: 05 Jul 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 Syed Huq 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: - None -------------------------- Call for patent disclosure: - None ------------- Review of ARs: - Arpad submit BIRD draft ------------- New Discussion: Arpad showed the Correcting the rules for AMI_Close BIRD draft: - Arpad: If we submit this all 5.1 items will be completed - Arpad described the recent BIRD changes - Arpad motioned to submit this BIRD to the open forum - Todd seconded the motion - The vote passed by acclamation AR: Arpad submit Correcting the rules for AMI_Close BIRD draft to open forum Arpad asked us to check the task list to verify things really are done: - Arpad: Todd said we could not drop items 46 & 47 - Is the Version keyword not sufficient for this - Walter: We should go through all jitter parameters to see what they replace - Would like to defer this discussion - Some parameters overlap, some don't - Bob: There is an assumption that 5.1 will be released with what we have now - We should not use Version to determine which jitter keywords are best AR: All check task list to verify completion of items Walter showed an email from Mike about BIRD 121.1: - Walter: Mike sent comments on the parameter name spellings - No objection if people want to clean up the parameter names - Walter already replied about use of DLLPath - Mike: Agree with the reply - Ken: Do other kinds of files have to be kept together? - Walter: There has to be a way to find the files - Ken: The user would have to set the path string - Walter: The EDA tool would have to know how to handle that - Ken: Does this make it illegal to put full paths in text files? - Todd: This helps models find their files after they have been moved around - Arpad: These should be Reserved, not Model_Specific - At least not Info types (Supporting_Files) - Walter said that would be OK - Ken: Is DLLPath separate from CWD? - Walter: Yes - Each model instance might be given a different DLLPath too - Bob: Supporting_Files should be a Table syntax - Walter: It could be a Table - Todd: The EDA tool realizes when it is given a directory, not a file - This is to avoid overwriting files - Ambrish: Should the parser check this? - Todd: It probably should - It can only check for existence, not contents - Ambrish: Why would the files not be at the DLL location? - Todd: Tools have import functions - Those have to know what files to carry over - Bob asked a few more questions about locating files and Todd gave examples - Arpad: IBS, AMI, and DLL files have to be n the same place - Supporting_Files is relative to that - Ambrish: Why does the DLL not know where it is? - Todd: It knows where it is running, not where it's image is - Arpad: It should be more specific than "correct path" - Walter changed a sentence. - Ambrish: So a partial path would be relative to the CWD - Mike: The CWD might be tricky to use - It may be some path like /windows/system32 that is not useful - Arpad: Should we mandate full paths? - Walter: The EDA tool should do what it wants to - It is up to them to do the right thing - Arpad: If paths could be full or relative that is harder for model makers - Walter: The OS handles it - The code is the same either way - Todd: DLLPath can be prepended to the file name - We should say if it has the trailing slash or not - It should end in a slash - Mike: Do we want the parser to reject DLLPath not ending in slash? - Walter: The EDA tool generates it on the fly, it is not parsed - Should the parser ignore the value? - Bob: The EDA tool might just pass along the .ami value - Walter changed the spec value for DLLPath - Todd: The path "./" would open relative to the CWD - Ambrish: We never pass Reserved params back to the model at all - We would be breaking that rule - Walter: That was a convention, not a rule - I will not submit this to the open forum yet - DLLid has similar conventions to DLLPath - Bob: The other question is about Supporting_Files format List vs. Table - Walter: To the parser they are just strings - They are not really for the DLL, mostly for tools that transport files Meeting ended. ------------- Next meeting: 12 July 2011 12:00pm PT Next agenda: 1) Task list item discussions ------------- IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List: 1) Simulator directives