IBIS Macromodel Task Group Meeting date: 24 Apr 2012 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 Feras Al-Hawari Celsionix: Kellee Crisafulli Cisco Systems: Ashwin Vasudevan Syed Huq Ericsson: Anders Ekholm IBM: * Greg Edlund Intel: Michael Mirmak A LSI Logic: Wenyi Jin Maxim Integrated Products: Mahbubul Bari 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: - None -------------------------- Call for patent disclosure: - None ------------- Review of ARs: - Arpad update BIRDs 117 & 118 to generalize parameter references - Done - Walter/Bob update Table example based on discussion requests - No update - Arpad to propose IBIS spec changes to clarify ISS D2A & A2D interfaces - In progress - Ambrish update BIRD 145 for pad to pin mapping and other clarifications - Tabled, waiting for outcome of other issues ------------- New Discussion: BIRD 123.3: - Walter showed the latest BIRD 123.3 draft - Walter: The "half peak to peak" language has been used in 3 places - Rx_Clock_Recovery_Sj should use "ideal_time" as reference - Arpad: Is that ideal clock time? - Walter: It is halfway between the median of the eye crossing zero - James: Are the zero crossings available in statistical mode? - Walter: It is based on the median crossing based on probability distribution - Alternative methods are welcome - Walter: Rx_Rj is now defined based on time - James found several places where this change had to be made - James: Rx_Sj should be based on Rx_Dj time - Walter: Yes, same for Rx_DCD too - Walter showed changes to Tx_DCD - Walter: I recommend a straw man vote in the open forum Arpad showed an email from Walter about UI: - Walter: The question is how to pass Model_Specific params of type UI to a DLL - The conclusion is that it should be fractional UI, not converted to seconds - Do we need a BIRD? - Bob: No - Arpad: Michael Mirmak plans to use our decision for the editorial work - Radek: This applies anywhere, not just Model_Specific - Walter: Agree - James: Sample_interval is in seconds? - Arpad: Yes - James: The spec does not give the units - Radek: The editorial group should add that - Bob: We might already cover this Arpad showed a new Analog Model Boundary Definition BIRD draft: - Arpad: One small paragraph is added - Bob and Radek approved - Arpad: This would apply to our other language definitions - Bob: That would include Touchstone - James: Does this apply to the A2D? - Arpad: It defines the places to be probed BIRD 117.4 and 118.3 updates: - Arpad showed BIRD 117.4 draft 3 and described the changes - Arpad: No change about relative paths has been made - Also no change for parameters within "this" IBIS file - Walter: In EBD we have "*.ibs" to mean it is in this file - Radek: There was discussion whether it should be allowed in the IBIS file - Arpad: We decided to allow it, but with keywords to enclose it - Arpad: Kukal had a question asked if two different AMI files could be used - He suggested prohibiting that - It might be a parser problem - Bob: I have concerns about putting trees in IBIS - This is becoming logistically complicated - It is different from AMI rules, no Reserved_Parameters required for example - Kumar: We should not have those requirements here - Arpad: Agree - Walter: There is a difference between syntax and context - Bob: Is Usage Info supported? - Walter: Yes, but Out does not make sense - Bob: The rules for this should be documented - This may pose problems writing the parser - Arpad: The goal is to pass in values that might come from other files - We have wanted this for some time - Bob: Complication proves it is not a good approach - I am leaning toward Walter's approach - Ambrish: What if it is not an AMI model? - Bob: Use IBIS - We have to get this under control - Walter: We need a syntax that knows nothing about Model_Specific, etc. - Then another for context rules for AMI - Then another for context rules for ISS - Ambrish: Agree - Bob: It should be separated out of IBIS - Arpad: The immediate goal is to pass parameters to [External Circuit] - Walter: The parser will have to have two parts - It will be painful if syntax checking is combined with context checking - Bob: We have funding issues for parser development, can't afford big changes - Arpad: Is this 5.2 or 6.0? - Bob: It just has to be well documented - If we break something fixing it is a priority Arpad showed the old ARs: - Arpad: One is to find a way to parameterize models - The need for this has existed for years - Bob: I support BIRD 116 - Arpad: That has no parameterization - Walter: Several of us want parameter trees - We should have a vote which path to go down ------------- Next meeting: 01 May 2012 12:00pm PT Next agenda: 1) Task list item discussions ------------- IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List: 1) Simulator directives