Re: Connector spec swathing

I know the connector specification committee has spent much time and effort in
comming up with the specification. However the current swat matrix approach
seems overly complicated and technically less than desirable. Why not give the

full matrix and let the simulation SI tool decide which part of the matrix to
choose
for simulation based on what pin and coupling is desired. We (simulation
vendors)
only need the data. We can decide how and when to use what. What we need is
the committee to do is identify the connector pins to the matrix diagonal
entrys. If
the connector is very large in terms of number of pins then whether one gets a
full
or sparse matrix will depend on the field solver capabilities. This is not
intended to
be critical of the committee which has worked long and hard to come up with a
spec
in the first place while hence keeping everybody happy.

Best Regards,

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 Thu Jun 15 00:27:17 2000