IBIS Macromodel Task Group

Meeting date: 18 Oct 2011

Members (asterisk for those attending):
Agilent:                    * Fangyi Rao
                              Radek Biernacki
Altera:                     * David Banas
Ansys:                        Samuel Mertens
                            * Dan Dvorscak
                            * Curtis Clark
Arrow Electronics:            Ian Dodd
Cadence Design Systems:       Terry Jernberg
                            * Ambrish Varma
Celsionix:                    Kellee Crisafulli
Cisco Systems:                Ashwin Vasudevan
                              Syed Huq
Ericsson:                     Anders Ekholm
IBM:                          Greg Edlund
Intel:                        Michael Mirmak
LSI Logic:                    Wenyi Jin
Mentor Graphics:            * John Angulo
                              Zhen Mu
                            * Arpad Muranyi
			      Vladimir Dmitriev-Zdorov
Micron Technology:            Randy Wolff
NetLogic Microsystems:        Ryan Couts
Nokia-Siemens Networks:     * Eckhard Lenski
QLogic Corp.                  James Zhou
Sigrity:                      Brad Brim
                            * Kumar Keshavan
                              Ken Willis
SiSoft:                     * Walter Katz
                              Todd Westerhoff
                              Doug Burns
			    * Mike LaBonte
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:

- Arpad: We had agreed on a different time slot
  - David 10:00 PT
  - Arpad: Fangyi was unable to make it at that time
  - Fangyi: 9:00 is not good once per month
  - David: 9:00 is bad for me
  - Bob: We should not change until we have a good time slot
  - Arpad: We will make no change until further proposals

--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:

- None

-------------
Review of ARs:

- Arpad: Add rule #9 to BIRD 127.3 draft
  - Done

- Arpad: Add to Getwave call size rule
  - Done

- Ken: Submit backchannel BIRD to Open Forum
  - Kumar: I will check with him

- Walter: Send latest jitter BIRD to Mike L. for posting
  - In process, expected next week

-------------
New Discussion:

Arpad showed a side-by-side comparison of BIRD 127.2 vs. 127.3:
- Arpad described the changes
- Bob: There is conflicting terminology "leaf/value pair"
  - Leaf is already defined to include the value
- Arpad: Can the editorial group address this?
- Bob: That would be OK
- Kumar: Are we clear on what a parameter is?
- Bob read the definition
- Bob motioned to approve the draft for submission
- Curtis seconded
- VOTE: No objection, the motion passed by acclamation

Arpad showed a side-by-side comparison of sampling rate BIRD version 4 vs 5
- Arpad described the changes
- Fangyi: What does analog to digital conversion mean here?
- Kumar: Internally the model has to do conversions
  - An incoming waveform should be treated as continuous

- Fangyi: Can Init() and Getwave() exit with a failure return?
- Walter: Getwave can, for example with regard to block size
- Fangyi: Which function returns the code?
- Arpad: Any of them can
- Kumar: For this 0 is failure and 1 is success
- Arpad: The opposite is more common, to include failure codes
- David: Modern languages are getting away from that
- Curtis: We should change "must be able to produce valid results"
- Walter: Or add "to be compliant"

- Ambrish: Can wave_size be different from call to call?
- Arpad: It can
- Kumar: The software should accept any block size
- Arpad: We should not have to say it, but we could anyway
- Ambrish suggested language to add
- Walter: I am researching this issue
- Curtis motioned to approve this BIRD for submission with changes
- Ambrish seconded
- VOTE: No objection, the motion passed by acclamation

Arpad showed his BIRD on corners:
- Walter: AMI in IBIS 5.0 clearly correlates to derivation method corners
  - Original IBIS does not
  - C_comp has been a thorn in our sides for years
  - Bob's proposal for C_comp_corner would resolve that
- Arpad: We should map slow to min and fast to max if they don't use it
- Walter: Simulators would have to de-embed C_comp
  - Usually tools use min C_comp for fast, etc.
- Arpad: C_comp could be an exception
- Walter: C_comp_corner should be in IBIS 5.1
- Arpad: My proposal would be to document what should be done today
- Bob: I agree with Walter
  - This is an existing problem
- Walter: I don't know anyone supporting 5 value C_comp
- Agree: It is the same as Bob's proposal with different syntax

Walter motioned to vote on Bob's BIRD or Arpad's BIRD
- Arpad: I do not have a BIRD yet

-------------
Minutes by Mike LaBonte

Next meeting: 25 Oct 2011 12:00pm PT

Next agenda:
1) Task list item discussions

-------------
IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:

1) Simulator directives