IBIS Macromodel Task Group Meeting date: 28 April 2015 Members (asterisk for those attending): ANSYS: Dan Dvorscak * Curtis Clark Avago (LSI) Xingdong Dai * Bob Miller Cadence Design Systems: Ambrish Varma Brad Brim Kumar Keshavan Ken Willis eASIC David Banas Ericsson: Anders Ekholm IBM Steve Parker Intel: * Michael Mirmak Keysight Technologies: * Fangyi Rao * Radek Biernacki * Nicholas Tzou Maxim Integrated Products: Hassan Rafat Mentor Graphics: * John Angulo * Arpad Muranyi Micron Technology: * Randy Wolff Justin Butterfield QLogic Corp. James Zhou Andy Joy eASIC Marc Kowalski SiSoft: Walter Katz Todd Westerhoff * Mike LaBonte Synopsys Rita Horner Teraspeed Consulting Group: Scott McMorrow Teraspeed Labs: * Bob Ross (Note: Agilent has changed to Keysight) The meeting was led by Arpad Muranyi. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Opens: - None -------------------------- Call for patent disclosure: - None ------------- Review of ARs: - Walter send back-channel BIRD drafts to Mike for posting. - Done. - Arpad, Randy and Radek prepare Define Package Model BIRD draft ready for Open Forum. - Still discussing details. - Michael M update AMI Directionality BIRD - No update - Arpad to review IBIS specification for min max issues. - In progress. ------------- New Discussion: Define Package Modeling Clarifications/Enhancements BIRD: - Bob R: We are pretty close, just fine tuning now. - Radek: We should discuss the new items. Back-channel/Optimization BIRD: - Arpad: Ambrish said Cadence is still studying the new proposals. - Fangyi: On page 4 the sentence at the bottom might be missing a word. - Mike: The word "supports" might be missing from the sentence. - Radek: Would it do training flow or regular flow when calling Init after GetWave? - Fangyi: The table on page 5 is hard to understand. - Two of the values are "Yes" and "Disabled". - Should "Yes" be "Enabled"? - Mike L: Possibly. The table needs more description. - Fangyi: On page 6 what do the Training/Analysis lists mean? - Bob M: Some users may want statistical analysis after Init training. - Arpad: This may answer the question about models that support both. - Fangyi: Is the BCI_Init_After_GetWave parameter really needed? - Bob M: It is valid to have that parameter. - There can be some "sleight of hand" in the first Init call. - We need to make sure Init has the same data after GetWave training. - Mike L: Does the EDA tool need to do anything? - Bob M: It is mostly the model. - The settings from GetWave should be passed to Init. - We have not processed parameters from GetWave before. - The model might already have this though if Init and GetWave share data. - Fangyi: Do we need BCI_Init_After_GetWave if the model preserves its state? - Bob M: It might not be needed then. AMI Directionality BIRD: - Michael M: We have reduced new Reserved_Parameters to just AMI_Model_Type. - A single DLL can have both TX and RX, but separate AMI files are needed. - A table describes which are TX and which are RX parameters. - Some are both. - Much of this has been simplified. - Would like a vote of approval here, to submit to Open Forum. - Arpad: This is the April 14 posting to our work archive? - Michael M: Yes. - Bob R: Is it illegal to have an I/O AMI model without The Direction parameter? - Michael M: True. That should not impact existing models. - Mike L: IBISCHK would have to check the AMI file for each [Algorithmic Model]. - Michael M: It is a three way consistency check. - Bob R: This would not be checked for 6.0 models. - Michael M: Right. - Another possibility would be to not require Direction for I/O models. - But the point of the BIRD is to take away ambiguity. - Mike L: Which version matters, [IBIS Ver] or AMI_Version? - Michael M: It should be the [IBIS Ver]. - The first level check takes place in the IBIS file. - If there is a conflict it will be flagged. - Radek: Do we need AMI_Model_Type in the AMI file at all? - Michael M: There are two types of checks: - One check is for consistency between the IBIS and AMI files. - Another check is not having both TX & RX parameters in the same AMI file. - Radek: If you mix them today the parser does not detect a problem. - Michael M: We could ditch AMI_Model_Type if we publish a table. - Is that OK? - Radek: We should be able to do this by checking the contents of the AMI file. - Arpad: That will work only without both directions in one AMI file. - Michael M: The BIRD requires separate AMI files. - This is like the Touchstone [Number of Frequencies] parameter. - It's a nice crosscheck. - Arpad: It is useful for Touchstone files because the data could be long. - AMI files are short. - Mike L: What can IBISCHK use to detect accidental I/O Model_type in the IBIS file? - Michael M: The Direction subparameter has to appear. - We can check the AMI Reserved_Parameters too. AR: Michael M test to see what ibischk does with existing keywords related to model direction. Michael M reminded all to cast their vote on the new Policies and Procedures document. ------------- Next meeting: 5 May 2015 12:00pm PT ------------- IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List: 1) Simulator directives