IBIS Specification Methodology

Peter:

It would be nice if there were a standardized method to process IBIS models.
However, for historical reasons and EDA tool vendor algorithm evolution, the
"best" methods to process the data is not known and could be debated. More
comments are in your text.

Best Regards,
Bob Ross
Mentor Graphics

Wilson, Peter wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there a specification of the methodology (over and above the basic specification for IBIS) to adhere to when creating IBIS models from simulation results and in the opposite flow for the creation of simulation models from an IBIS specification ?

No. There is no specified methodology. One method may be better than
another for a specific application. Also one method may be better than
another based on what criteria is used in determining what is the best
simulation result.

However, some common methods are emerging based on (some form of) deriving
multiplying coefficients over time to transition the [Pulldown] tables and
[Pullup] tables from on/off to off/on.

So I believe some defendable processing algorithms can be encoded in an HDL.

>
> This should ensure that regardless of which language/simulator was being used, there would be confidence that the simulations would be able to be validated AND verified. (Particularly relevant now with the emergence of mixed signal/analog HDLs such as IEEE 1076.1 and Verilog-AMS)
>
> This would also assist both the vendors/universities creating tools and also designers who have to work with ultimately the simulation models (either direct IBIS models or indirect models -such as spice derived from IBIS)
>
> Thanks,
> Peter
>
> Peter R. Wilson
> Technical Specialist - Analogy Europe and Asia
> Email : peterw@analogy.com
> Tel : +44 1793 432286
> Fax : +44 1793 488098
> WWW : http://www.analogy.com
>
Received on Thu Jun 10 18:08:28 1999