IBIS Macromodel Task Group Meeting date: 19 September 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: - None. ------------- Review of ARs: Kinger: Send out draft2 of BIRD223.1 with the changes and updates noted during the ATM meeting. - Done. Michael: Send out draft8 of the [AMI Test Data] proposal including more feedback from Ambrish and the ATM meeting. - In progress. -------------------------- Call for patent disclosure: - None. ------------------------- Review of Meeting Minutes: Arpad asked for any comments or corrections to the minutes of the September 12th meeting. Michael moved to approve the minutes. Ambrish seconded the motion. There were no objections. -------------- New Discussion: BIRD223.1 draft2: Kinger reported that Lance had helped him generate a version of draft2 that tracked the new changes, and it had been uploaded to the IBIS Open Forum BIRDs page. Kinger said he had since realized that he had inadvertently removed one "NA" from a column of one of the examples. Bob offered a few editorial corrections to the header information. Bob and Arpad suggested the new version with these minor corrections should be uploaded and overwrite BIRD223.1. They said it did not require a BIRD223.2. The group agreed. Arpad encouraged people to review BIRD223.1. Arpad said he would remove this item from the ATM agenda. [AMI Test Data] proposal: Michael referred to an email he had sent to the ATM list after the previous meeting, which contained a table of the combinations of Tx/Rx and statistical or time domain. He said that we want to make the input impulse response explicitly available, but we are also trying to distinguish between statistical and time domain flows and between calls to AMI_Init and AMI_GetWave. He said he thought one problem with the current draft was that it alternated between the terms statistical and time domain and referring to AMI_Init and AMI_GetWave. He asked whether for time domain models we may not want to use AMI_Init and may not need the input impulse response. Curtis and Arpad said the input impulse response is always required, because even in a time domain only model AMI_Init must be called first, and the tool must be provided with an input impulse response to pass to AMI_Init. Michael asked whether we could reduce confusion by simply referring to AMI_Init or AMI_GetWave and leaving out the use of statistical or time domain. Ambrish said that statistical and time domain flows are used in the specification and generally understood. He suggested we should continue to leverage that and keep referring to statistical and time domain as appropriate. Arpad reiterated his concerns about the use of the term "digital" when describing the Stimulus_file contents for the Tx in time domain. He said that even the name "stimulus" tended to make him think of an input bit stream, but the contents of the Stimulus_file would be a sampled analog waveform. Ambrish suggested that Stimulus_file be renamed Input_waveform_file, and Arpad then suggested that we change Impulse_matrix_file to Input_impulse_file for consistency. Michael and the group agreed with the suggestions. With these two Sub-Param names we explicitly call out impulse or waveform, as opposed to the way in which the original Stimulus_file was overloaded depending on the situation. Ambrish emphasized that in this proposal we are addressing one model at a time. The model might be a Tx or an Rx, but this proposal is providing the inputs to and expected outputs from a particular model. The name "Input_waveform_file", for example, is relative to the model being tested and contains the waveform that is input to that AMI model. Michael confirmed that he understood the suggestions. He said in the next draft he would ensure that the Direction Sub-Param and the AMI input descriptions are in sync. He also said the next draft would recommend that this proposal be added after section 10.4, so it will be preceded by the AMI function signature descriptions to which it refers. Ambrish asked if Michael could create a syntactically complete example to fully demonstrate his proposal. Michael agreed to do so. - Ambrish: Motion to adjourn. - Curtis: Second. - Arpad: Thank you all for joining. New ARs: Kinger: Provide BIRD223.1 draft2 with minor cleanup changes to Lance to post to the IBIS Open Forum BIRDs page as BIRD223.1. Michael: Send out draft8 of the [AMI Test Data] proposal including more feedback from the ATM meeting. (continued from previous meeting) Michael: Develop a full syntactically complete example demonstrating the [AMI Test Data] proposal. ------------- Next meeting: 26 September 2023 12:00pm PT ------------- IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List: 1) Simulator directives