[IBIS] RE: "corner_name" and BIRD 129

Radek,

I agree. The other option is to change the rules for
the D_to_A converters so that the corner_name column
is always required. The current rule is kind of a
convenience only anyway...

A follow-up question is whether we want to make the new
proposed column (polarity) required than also to be
more consistent and rigorous.

Suggestions and comments welcome. Thanks,

Arpad
==========================================================

From: ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of radek_biernacki@agilent.com
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 1:36 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis@eda.org; ibis-macro@freelists.org
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: "corner_name" and BIRD 129

Hi Arpad,

While conceivable, I think that contextual interpretation of the column type based on the value present in that column would be a poor practice.

Radek

From: ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org]<mailto:[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org]> On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 11:16 AM
To: ibis@eda.org<mailto:ibis@eda.org>; 'IBIS-ATM'
Subject: [ibis-macro] "corner_name" and BIRD 129

All,

I got an AR in the IBIS Open Forum meeting today to check
whether the "corner_name" column in the D_to_A converters
is required or not to make sure that the additional column
proposed in BIRD 129 would still work. This is what I found
in the v5.0 specification on pg. 109:

| The corner_name entry holds the name of the external model

| corner being referenced, as listed under the Corner

| subparameter.

|

| At least one D_to_A line must be present, corresponding to the

| "Typ" corner model, for each digital line to be converted.

| Additional D_to_A lines for other corners may be omitted. In

| this case, the typical corner D_to_A entries will apply to all
| model corners and the "Typ" corner_name entry may be omitted.

A similar text appears on pg. 127-128 for [External Circuit].
This means that "corner_name" is actually optional for the case
when only one D_to_A converter exists (per line), when that single
converter is expected to be used by the EDA tool for all corners.

However, even if we didn't make any changes to BIRD 129 (keeping
the "polarity" column optional), we wouldn't be in any trouble for
the following reason:

The "corner_name" and "polarity" columns may only contain the following
predefined values: "Typ", "Min", "Max" for the former, and "Inverting"
or "Non-Inverting" for the latter. This means that if either of these
optional columns are missing, the parser or the EDA tool would still
know which value belongs to the "corner_name" or "polarity" column.

So the BIRD would work as is, even if the parsing may not be as elegant
as it could be otherwise. I would like to get some feedback on this.
Should we change anything, or is it acceptable as it stands?

Thanks,

Arpad
========================================================================

--------------------------------------------------------------------
|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
Received on Fri Jul 13 13:26:47 2012