Arpad, Now I see what you're saying. I think that this case works as well, but the evaluation order may not be what you were thinking. It's late here - I'd like to defer this one until later this morning, so that I've got some time to think through this & speak with others. Okay? Todd. Todd Westerhoff VP, Software Products SiSoft 6 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 (978) 461-0449 x24 twesterh@sisoft.com www.sisoft.com -----Original Message----- From: ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 12:23 AM To: ibis@eda.org; IBIS-ATM Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD107: Update to Algorithmic Modeling API (AMI) Support in IBIS Todd, I think we don't understand each other. What I was referring is this. Your explanation for that change in BIRD107 was that for the FALSE case you couldn't require to have the EDA tool convolve the unchanged channel impulse response with the stimulus waveform pattern (as I suggested it one of my emails) because if this was required, AND there was an RX model which also had a FALSE then the channel impulse response would be convolved into the total outcome twice (= double counted). My most recent question was suggesting that this could also happen with what is in BIRD107 for the TRUE case. In the TRUE case the output of INIT is convolved with the stimulus waveform and sent into the GETWAVE. If this is done for both the Tx and Rx, then the modified impulse response coming out of INIT will be included twice in the total calculations. (This is with the assumption that the INIT function's input is the channel impulse response for Tx and Rx). Is this situation never going to happen? Arpad ======================================================================== ====== -----Original Message----- From: ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Todd Westerhoff Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 9:02 PM To: ibis@eda.org; 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD107: Update to Algorithmic Modeling API (AMI) Support in IBIS Arpad, I think the effect is the same. TX: Use_Init_Output=False RX: Use_Init_Output=False TX: Use_Init_Output=True RX: Use_Init_Output=False In either case, the output from the TX AMI_Getwave should be fed directly into the RX AMI_Getwave. Agree? Todd. Todd Westerhoff VP, Software Products SiSoft 6 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 (978) 461-0449 x24 twesterh@sisoft.com www.sisoft.com -----Original Message----- From: ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:23 PM To: ibis@eda.org; IBIS-ATM Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD107: Update to Algorithmic Modeling API (AMI) Support in IBIS That double counting could also happen when you have a Tx GetWave and an Rx GetWave call in the same system with the Boolean being FALSE both times. Or is that never going to happen? Arpad ======================================================================= -----Original Message----- From: ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Todd Westerhoff Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:14 PM To: ibis@eda.org; 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: [IBIS] BIRD107: Update to Algorithmic Modeling API (AMI) Support in IBIS Oops. Off by one word. Corrected copy below. Arpad, I made that change when preparing the BIRD. The presentation we were reviewing on Tuesday was focusing solely on a TX model how the Init/Getwave calls would be used to predict the waveform at the RX pad. What I realized while preparing the BIRD was that the language we were using could be construed as requiring a second copy of the channel impulse response to be convolved into the waveform presented to the RX AMI_Getwave call, even when Use_Init_Output is False. Consider the case where the TX and RX model both implement filtering in AMI_Init and AMI_Getwave. In the case where Use_Init_Output for the RX model is set to False, then the output of the TX AMI_Getwave call should be fed directly into the RX AMI_Getwave call. The existing language | If the Reserved Parameter, Use_Init_Output, is set to "False", EDA tools will | use the original (unfiltered) impulse response of the channel. Didn't support that clearly. My concern was that the impulse response of the channel would end up in the output twice in some EDA implementations. The proposed language was ambiguous in the case where both models have both calls, and Use_Init_Output is False. This was a realization I had at 5:00 this afternoon, with different key people out of the office. Thus I had a decision to make - change the language and go ahead (I know this stuff works, we've already tested and correlated it) - or wait. I chose the former. Sorry if this came as a surprise - there's no hidden agenda here. There was simply a case we forgot to consider, and I made a change to address it. We can discuss this further at tomorrow's and next Tuesday's meeting. Todd. Todd Westerhoff VP, Software Products SiSoft 6 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 (978) 461-0449 x24 twesterh@sisoft.com www.sisoft.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-ibis@eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis@eda.org] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:26 PM To: ibis@eda.org; IBIS-ATM Subject: RE: [IBIS] BIRD107: Update to Algorithmic Modeling API (AMI) Support in IBIS Excuse me, but how did the language on pg. 18 of this presentation: http://www.vhdl.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/archive/20080401/toddwesterh off/IBIS-AMI%20Correlation%20and%20BIRD%20Update/IBIS_ATM_BIRD_Update_04 0108.pdf change from: | If the Reserved Parameter, Use_Init_Output, is set to "False", EDA tools will | use the original (unfiltered) impulse response of the channel. | The algorithmic model is expected to modify the waveform in place. into what is in the text of the BIRD107: | If Use_Init_Output is set to "False", the EDA platform will present the | input waveform directly to the AMI_Getwave call (i.e. without convolving | the waveform with the impulse response returned by AMI_Init). The two paragraphs have a significant difference and I didn't see any discussion on that change... Could someone please explain that to me? What happened with the "impulse response of the channel"? Thanks, Arpad ===================================================================== -----Original Message----- From: owner-ibis@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Mirmak, Michael Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:09 PM To: ibis@server.eda.org Subject: [IBIS] BIRD107: Update to Algorithmic Modeling API (AMI) Support in IBIS The enclosed BIRD, "Update to Algorithmic Modeling API (AMI) Support in IBIS," is submitted on behalf of Todd Westerhoff, SiSoft and Zhen Mu, Cadence Design Systems. It will be introduced and discussed at an upcoming IBIS Open Forum teleconference. All resolved and pending BIRDs can be found at http:// <<bird107.txt>> www.eda.org/ibis/birds/. - Michael Mirmak Intel Corp. Chair, IBIS Open Forum -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------------------------------------------------------------- |For help or to subscribe/unsubscribe, e-mail majordomo@eda-stds.org |with the appropriate command message(s) in the body: | | help | subscribe ibis <optional e-mail address, if different> | subscribe ibis-users <optional e-mail address, if different> | unsubscribe ibis <optional e-mail address, if different> | unsubscribe ibis-users <optional e-mail address, if different> | |or e-mail a request to ibis-request@eda-stds.org. | |IBIS reflector archives exist under: | | http://www.eda-stds.org/pub/ibis/email_archive/ Recent | http://www.eda-stds.org/pub/ibis/users_archive/ Recent | http://www.eda-stds.org/pub/ibis/email/ E-mail since 1993 --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/ IBIS Macro reflector: http://www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro To unsubscribe send an email: To: ibis-macro-request@freelists.org Subject: unsubscribe --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/ IBIS Macro reflector: http://www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro To unsubscribe send an email: To: ibis-macro-request@freelists.org Subject: unsubscribe --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/ IBIS Macro reflector: http://www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro To unsubscribe send an email: To: ibis-macro-request@freelists.org Subject: unsubscribe --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/ IBIS Macro reflector: http://www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro To unsubscribe send an email: To: ibis-macro-request@freelists.org Subject: unsubscribe -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------------------------------------------------------------- |For help or to subscribe/unsubscribe, e-mail majordomo@eda-stds.org |with the appropriate command message(s) in the body: | | help | subscribe ibis <optional e-mail address, if different> | subscribe ibis-users <optional e-mail address, if different> | unsubscribe ibis <optional e-mail address, if different> | unsubscribe ibis-users <optional e-mail address, if different> | |or e-mail a request to ibis-request@eda-stds.org. | |IBIS reflector archives exist under: | | http://www.eda-stds.org/pub/ibis/email_archive/ Recent | http://www.eda-stds.org/pub/ibis/users_archive/ Recent | http://www.eda-stds.org/pub/ibis/email/ E-mail since 1993Received on Thu Apr 3 21:40:36 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 03 2008 - 21:40:56 PDT