IBIS Macromodel Task Group Meeting date: 29 August 2023 Members (asterisk for those attending): Achronix Semiconductor: Hansel Dsilva Amazon: John Yan ANSYS: * Curtis Clark Wei-hsing Huang Aurora System: * Dian Yang Cadence Design Systems: * Ambrish Varma Jared James Google: Hanfeng Wang GaWon Kim Intel: * Michael Mirmak * Kinger Cai * Chi-te Chen Liwei Zhao Keysight Technologies: * Fangyi Rao Majid Ahadi Dolatsara Stephen Slater Ming Yan Rui Yang Marvell: Steve Parker Mathworks (SiSoft): Walter Katz Graham Kus Micron Technology: Justin Butterfield Missouri S&T: Chulsoon Hwang Yifan Ding Zhiping Yang Rivos: Yansheng Wang SAE ITC: Michael McNair Siemens EDA (Mentor): * Arpad Muranyi * Randy Wolff Teraspeed Labs: * Bob Ross Zuken USA: * Lance Wang The meeting was led by Arpad Muranyi. Curtis Clark took the minutes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Opens: - Several regular attendees said they would not be able to attend the meeting scheduled for September 5th. The group decided to cancel the meeting on September 5th. ------------- Review of ARs: Michael: Send out draft6 of the [AMI Test Data] proposal including more feedback from Fangyi and the ATM meeting. - Done. -------------------------- Call for patent disclosure: - None. ------------------------- Review of Meeting Minutes: Arpad asked for any comments or corrections to the minutes of the August 22nd meeting. Michael moved to approve the minutes. Ambrish seconded the motion. There were no objections. -------------- New Discussion: Issues with BIRD223: The group continued the previous week's discussions on how best to manage the logistics of correcting the issues Arpad had found in BIRD223, which had already been approved by the Open Forum. Randy and Curtis had cited precedent for documenting minor editorial issues in approved BIRDs in the known issues document for the current version of the IBIS specification. Bob had said that he would prefer to capture the changes in a new BIRD223.1. Bob said he had investigated since the last meeting, and BIRD29.2 had been issued as a fix of the already-approved BIRD29.1. So, we have precedent for creating a .x revision update of an approved BIRD. Bob said that there were several additional changes that followed from the editorial issues Arpad had noted. He said the parameter tree changes were inconsistent with some of the keyword descriptions, in particular the question of what keywords can appear in the .ibs file. Kinger agreed. He said that originally [Device SPIM] had been allowed in a .spim file or directly in a .ibs file. However, after discussions in ATM, the decision had been made to include all SPIM related keywords exclusively in the .spim file, except for [Device SPIM Group], which appears in the .ibs file and serves as the link to the .spim file. Kinger agreed that the example for [Device SPIM Group] had not been updated and incorrectly stated that [Device SPIM] could appear in the .ibs file itself. Randy and Kinger then noted that Table 2 also mistakenly stated that [Device SPIM] was optional in a .ibs file. Randy and Curtis agreed that the scope of the changes had grown beyond what could reasonably be handled with an entry in the known issues document. Kinger agreed and said he would prepare a draft1 of a BIRD223.1 for the ATM group to review. Bob said that he would have no problem with the various SPIM keywords appearing directly in the .ibs file. Arpad noted that the closest parallel in existing keywords had been the package modeling keywords. However, the SPIM keywords contained lots of entirely new information, so we had decided to keep SPIM information in a separate .spim file. The group decided to leave this as it had been decided previously (no change). [AMI Test Data] proposal: Michael reviewed the changes in draft6, which he had sent to the ATM list prior to the meeting. He said that there were no changes to the main [AMI Test Data] keyword. The [Waveform] keyword had been updated to support PAMn, and additional clarifications to Clock_input and Clock_output had been made. Ambrish noted that the [AMI Test Data] keyword's Other Notes entry stated that it scoped the [Waveform] keyword, but this was done prior to [Waveform] being defined. He suggested that it would be clearer to move this statement on scoping to the [Waveform] keyword's Description. Michael agreed and noted the change. Ambrish expressed concern over the [AMI Test Data] keyword's Other Notes text: "...may encompass impulse response comparisons, time domain response comparisons or both." He said this language might give a first-time reader the impression that we are comparing impulse responses generated by different tools. In general, he said we have to step back and be careful that things that the ATM group has been discussing for some time would be easily understood by first-time readers. Arpad asked if we should be more precise about how we define a "channel response" and call it "channel impulse response". Michael said he had been attempting to avoid creating a table defining what is meant by "channel response" for each of the four possible combinations of Tx or Rx and statistical or time-domain. He said he had tried to define the meaning of the input to the Tx in the time domain case, (i.e., the "digital" stimulus waveform), and then generally described the possible contents of the "channel response" for the other three cases. Michael said he could revisit the language and add "impulse" for clarification. Ambrish found the description of Sample_interval lacking in detail. Michael confirmed that some of these required inputs relied upon the definitions of the AMI function signatures. Ambrish said this was okay, but he noted that the AMI sections appeared later in the specification. He suggested we add a reference to the section containing the AMI function definitions. Michael said he would address this either by adding a reference or changing the location of the proposed new text so that it occurred after that AMI section. Michael said he would send out a draft7 incorporating these changes and the changes Fangyi had sent via email. - Ambrish: Motion to adjourn. - Curtis: Second. - Arpad: Thank you all for joining. New ARs: Kinger: Send out draft1 of BIRD223.1 with the changes and updates noted during the ATM meeting. Michael: Send out draft7 of the [AMI Test Data] proposal including more feedback from Fangyi and the ATM meeting. ------------- Next meeting: 12 September 2023 12:00pm PT ------------- IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List: 1) Simulator directives