IBIS Macromodel Task Group Meeting date: 20 October 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 Marc Kowalski Ericsson: Anders Ekholm IBM Steve Parker Intel: Michael Mirmak Keysight Technologies: * Fangyi Rao * Radek Biernacki Maxim Integrated Products: Hassan Rafat Mentor Graphics: John Angulo * Arpad Muranyi Micron Technology: * Randy Wolff Justin Butterfield QLogic Corp. James Zhou Andy Joy SiSoft: * Walter Katz * Todd Westerhoff * Mike LaBonte Synopsys Rita Horner Teraspeed Consulting Group: Scott McMorrow Teraspeed Labs: * Bob Ross TI: Alfred Chong (Note: Agilent has changed to Keysight) The meeting was led by Arpad Muranyi. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Opens: - Arpad mentioned that the IBIS summit at EPEPs is next week (October 28), and we might want to cancel next week's ATM meeting. Bob and Walter agreed, and the group decided to cancel the ATM meeting on October 27th. - Arpad noted that the new Special Parameters BIRD, BIRD 179, had been added to the list of pending BIRDs at the bottom of the weekly ATM agenda. -------------------------- Call for patent disclosure: - None. ------------- Review of ARs: - Arpad to submit the final version of the Special Parameters BIRD to Mike L. to be uploaded as BIRD 179. - Done. - Radek to start an email thread regarding finalizing the language for the cleanup of references to "ground". - Done. - Walter to email draft 2 of the Redriver Init Flow proposal to Mike L. to be posted to the ATM website. - Done. ------------------------- Review of Meeting Minutes: - Arpad: Does anyone have any comments or corrections? [none] - Todd: Motion to approve the minutes. - Mike L: Second. - Arpad: Anyone opposed? [none] ------------- New Discussion: Item #6: New Redriver Flow BIRD (untabled last week, was Item #11). - Discussion: Walter and Fangyi mentioned that they had continued their private discussions on the topic, and that they were happy with the progress in understanding each other though plenty of work remained. Fangyi then posed additional questions regarding Walter's proposal. He stated that the flow #1 defined in Walter's proposal should properly provide the combined IR to the terminal Rx regardless of whether the redriver Tx self-optimized. He therefore wondered if the newly proposed parameter was necessary at all. Crosstalk contributions were then discussed. Fangyi stated that in the general case analyzing a network should not restrict the locations at which a given Tx could insert cross talk. Any Rx could receive crosstalk from any Tx, regardless of their locations. A single Tx might be an aggressor on the upstream Rx, which would then propagate down the channel to the terminal Rx, and the same Tx might be an aggressor directly to the terminal Rx. Fangyi felt that clarifications in the spec had stated that a Tx's IR matrix included IRs from the Tx to all Rxs (regardless of where any Rx might be). Fangyi restated his thought that the only outstanding issue was that the terminal Rx does not receive the combined IR so that it can optimize properly, and that this could be handled by passing in two IRs, the combined IR and the downstream-only IR. He felt that this and all the crosstalk terms could be handled without changing the footprint of the Init() call. Additional IRs could simply be appended to the IR matrix passed into Init(). Walter said he had an even better understanding of Fangyi's points, and the two could continue to work on the issues. Item #7: Language corrections regarding "ground". - Discussion: Several people thanked Radek for composing an excellent email summarizing the issues and providing a good starting point. Radek suggested that we first discuss how we would proceed with the actual process of making the changes. Mike L. reviewed his reply to Radek's original email and proposed that we might draft a BIRD that referred to work-in-progress revisions of the 6.1 spec as changes were made. He said that in the event that 6.2 were to become an SAE standard, we would need a robust change history. He noted that it was by no means certain that 6.2 would become an SAE standard. He felt that in any event it might be tedious to track all the changes for this project in our typical BIRD fashion. Radek stated that he felt it might be best to follow the traditional BIRD process, and that Walter had already provided a list of most, if not all, of the places that would require revisions. Mike L. expressed concern that writing a traditional BIRD would then rely on someone to laboriously fold all the described changes into the spec. Walter suggested that we might edit 6.1 directly to create 6.2 and then use the difference between that and 6.1 to generate the list of proposed changes. Arpad agreed and said that the BIRD might then just list the page numbers and paragraphs of the changes. Bob then concurred with Radek, and noted that additional BIRDS like 179 would also be folded into 6.2. Bob also noted that the pictures in IBIS 6.1 were done by manual writers hired by Tech America, and that they were not internal figures that could be edited directly in Word (they might be Visio). Mike L. suggested that we should get ahold of the original figures and archive them if possible. Lastly, the group agreed that work on this task should be handled within the ATM group meetings themselves. - Arpad: Now is a good stopping point. - Thank you all for joining. ------------- Next meeting: 03 November 2015 12:00pm PT ------------- IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List: 1) Simulator directives