Re: Connector spec swathing

Hi Chris,

I am having great difficultly understanding why
all the simulators should be forced to use the same method.

This is an approximate approach in the first place. If one
simulator wants to use a method that runs 100,000 times faster
than another with a 1% accuracy reduction than it should
be able to do that.

I feel the data must be unambiguous. The method should be
open to the simulator experts. I do think it reasonable to
provide one example method either as a description or as
code implemented in the IBIS parser. Perhaps a full matrix
extraction would make the most sense but I can hardly imagine
most simulators wanting to simulate a series of 10 matrices
each 1000 by 1000 just to get 2 coupled signals simulated.

I do not feel all simulators should use the same method. I
feel most simulators may even want to use different methods
depending on the simulation needs.

At 01:11 PM 6/14/00 -0700, Christopher Reid wrote:
>Gus,
>
>I don't consider any of this proprietary. I think its more important
>that its unambiguous so there is confidence that the intention of the
>connector vendors is followed when using the models. Every simulator
>should use the same method.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Chris
>
>apanella@molex.com wrote:
> >
> > So then, the recommendation would be to have the IBIS Connector Model
> > Specification _explicitly_ state how each simulator will implement the
> expansion
> > from the keywords and parameters already given in the specification.
> >
> > If the recommendation is acceptable (it is for me)... Would it be
> acceptable by
> > the simulator companies? If not.. is there a different option?
> >
> > In the discussion of this topic in the subcommittee, I got the
> impression that
> > the expansion method of matrices was somewhat seen as a proprietary
> technology.
> > As such, I wanted to build in enough keywords and usage rules that
> would allow
> > me to assign values that would _lessen_ the likelihood of incorrect
> simulator
> > implementation (assuming of course that I correctly defined the model,
> swath
> > size, and related keywords...)
> >
> > I will take this up at our next IBIS Connector Model subcommittee
> > teleconference.
> >
> > _gus: 630-527-4617
> >
> > ____________________Reply Separator____________________
> > Subject: Re: Connector spec swathing
> > Author: chris <chris_reid@mentorg.com>
> > Date: 6/14/00 9:13 AM
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Thanks for your illustration of my point. Clearly we have
> > exactly the same concern.
> >
> > Gus,
> >
> > Yes, including the larger matrix that is supposed to be expandable
> > to a full banded matrix would be useful, but it should also include
> > instructions on just how that smaller matrix is supposed to be used
> > to get the full banded matrix.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chris
> > <SNIP>

---------------------------------------------------------
Have a great day....
Kellee Crisafulli
HyperLynx, a division of Pads Software Inc.
SI,EMC,X-talk and IBIS tools
E-mail: <mailto:kellee@hyperlynx.com>
web:   <http://www.hyperlynx.com>
---------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Jun 14 14:00:37 2000