Re: IBIS BIRD64 - Package Model Selector

Matthew,

I assume you meant to use [Component] instead of [Model], because only components
have [Package Model] references. But I agree with your comments about consistent
use of [* Selector] keywords.

But my other thoughts about [Package Model Selector] are:

1) Seeing a [Package Model] statement and not knowing immediately whether the
   value is actually a package model name or just a key referencing a [Package
   Model Selector] entry is not comforting. This is an existing problem with
   [Model Selector], in my opinion.

2) Users probably will want simulators to transparently select typical, minimum,
   and maximum package models for the corresponding simulations. But if the
   [Package Model Selector] keywords given are "Sears Good Package", "Sears Better
   Package", and "Sears Best Package", the simulator will need help deciding
   which of these is typical, minimum, or maximum.

If it is likely that there will be fast, typical, slow versions of package models,
then maybe we should provide a means for communicating this. The minimum impact
method might be something like:

[Package Model] BGA_typ BGA_min BGA_max

where the min and max entries are allowed but optional in versions above IBIS 3.2.
Even if we go with the [Package Model Selector] approach, maybe the selector definition
entries should allow for typ, min, and max?

Mike

Mike LaBonte

Matthew Flora wrote:
>
> Dear Arpad,
>
> > An alternate syntax was suggested by Bob Ross during an EMAIL and telephone
> > correspondence on 10-25-99. The suggested syntax is identical to the [Model
> > Selector] syntax, according to which the [Package Model Selector] would be
> > assigned a name that is called by the (higher level) [Package Model]
> keyword.
> > However, unlike in the [Model Selector] case, there is no need for calling
> the
> > [Package Model Selector] from a higher level. This BIRD favors the simpler
> > vs. the more consistent approach.
>
> I'm afraid I prefer the consistent approach over the "simpler" approach. In
> fact, I feel that having the [Package Model Selector] be completely consistent
> with [Model Selector] is the simpler approach to use because you won't need to
> remember any difference between them.
>
> So, what I'm saying is, I'd like to have the means by which a named [Package
> Model Selector] is referenced by a [Model] be by specifying the name of the
> [Package Model Selector] in the argument to the [Package Model] keyword in the
> [Model].
>
> Regards,
> Matthew Flora
> Senior Engineer
> HyperLynx
> (425) 869-2320 PH
> (425) 881-1008 FAX
> mbflora@hyperlynx.com
> 14715 NE 95th Street, Suite 200, Redmond, WA 98052 USA
Received on Wed Oct 27 11:36:42 1999