Re: Connector spec swathing

All,
        If there is no recommendation of how to create a
simulation model from the connector "data sheet" how does
the connector company do basic validation after they have
created a model.

        Doing speed/accuracy tradeoffs is good, but I think
we need some way to create a golden simulation so the
results can be compared back to measurement.

Ian

Kellee Crisafulli wrote:
>
> 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 14:23:00 2000