Arpad: I agree that the rules should be spelled out. What we decide should be discussed at the next ATM meeting. Repeaters and future back channel training should be considered in formulating the rules. Bob From: owner-ibis@eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis@eda.org] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:06 PM To: ibis@eda.org Subject: RE: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter and Noise Parameters Bob, Regarding Fangyi's suggestion, this is not something I should decide (or agree/disagree). We need to discuss and decide his suggestion collectively. I can see reasons for it being useful, but then the question is why only Rx and why only the last call? Making use of the values returned by Tx GetWave could be just as useful in some cases, or making use of all returned values between GetWave calls might also be useful in some cases. Whatever we decide, the bottom line is that the rules should be spelled out in the specification clearly and unambiguously. For example, in the suggestion below I read this: "EDA tools should still be allowed to use the Rx parameters returned by the last GetWave operation." This means that we need to state that only value returned by Rx can be used by the EDA tool in this way, and only its output from the last call within a simulation. We may also need to say a few words on what and how the EDA tool can use these values for as opposed to the rest of the returned values. How would all this effect repeaters, and back channel simulations? Could the returned values from one simulation be used in the next (in training), or could the value of one channel be applied to the next channel (in the case of repeaters), etc. I don't think that a small tweak on that sentence can do all this, we may need a few more sentences to achieve this. An as you know, the more we write, the more discussion will follow to get it right and unambiguous. Do we have time for that now? Thanks, Arpad ============================================================ From: Bob Ross [mailto:bob@teraspeed.com] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:30 AM To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis@eda.org Subject: RE: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter and Noise Parameters Arpad: Your write-up looks good to me. Regarding the second sentence, (first sentence in the second paragraph), Fangyi suggested privately that it should apply only to Tx Jitter parameters: If Tx jitter parameters are Usage Out, then the EDA Tool/Simulator shall use values returned by AMI_Init. He stated that EDA tools should still be allowed to use the Rx parameters returned by the last GetWave operation. Do you agree with this view, and should we modify the second paragraph to capture these rules? Bob From: owner-ibis@eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis@eda.org] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:48 PM To: ibis@eda.org Subject: RE: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter and Noise Parameters How about something along these lines: Note: If the Jitter and Noise parameters are Usage Info, the EDA tool/simulator shall obtain their values from the AMI parameter (.ami) file, optionally through a user interface if user selections are available or needed. If these parameters are Usage Out, the EDA tool/simulator shall use the values returned by the AMI_Init function. It is the model maker 's responsibility to make sure that the AMI_Init function returns the appropriate value in these parameters to the EDA tool/simulator to achieve successful simulations. The model's AMI_GetWave function may also return values in these parameters to the EDA tool/simulator, and these values are not required to be the same as the values previously returned by the AMI_Init function. The EDA tool/simulator may report the values returned by the AMI_GetWave function to the user, but these values may not be used by the EDA tool/simulator to modify or calculate parameter values passed into simulation models in subsequent function calls or simulations, or to modify or calculate the simulation results in any way. Thanks, Arpad =================================== From: Bob Ross [mailto:bob@teraspeed.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:13 PM To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis@eda.org Cc: bob@teraspeed.com Subject: RE: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter and Noise Parameters Arpad: I understand the concern. An alternative paragraph might state: Note: The EDA Tool/Simulator shall use the values of the Jitter and Noise parameters directly (or as selected by the user according to the parameter Type descriptions) if they are Usage Info. If they are Usage Out, then the EDA Tool/Simulator shall use the values returned by AMI_Init. The model's AMI_GetWave function may return different values for these parameters than the values returned by AMI_Init; the EDA Tool/Simulator may report the values of such parameters to the user, but the EDA Tool/Simulator may not change any input to AMI models or change any result of the simulation based on the values returned for the Jitter and Noise parameters by AMI_GetWave. Can you suggest improvements? Bob Bob From: owner-ibis@eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis@eda.org] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:17 PM To: ibis@eda.org Subject: RE: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter and Noise Parameters Bob, Good catch about referencing the BIRD at the end. The last sentence does not sound all that much better this way either. But in addition, I just realized that this entire note only talks about what the EDA tool should do. It doesn't say what the responsibilities of the model maker is. I think we need to spell out that if any of these parameters is Usage Out, the model maker has to make sure that the Init function returns a valid value for the EDA tool, and then we can mention that they can also return other values in GetWave, but those will not be used by the EDA tool or the model in any way to have an effect on the simulation, or its results. I am getting nitpicky now, but I also wonder about the word "directly" in the first sentence. I understand the intent, meaning "from the .ami file not from the AMI model", but to some the word "directly" might mean "without user intervention" in the context of the EDA tool providing a GUI for the user to select a specific value. This can't be the case, since some types might require user selection (list, range, etc.), but the word "directly" might imply that. Thanks, Arpad ============================================================== From: Bob Ross [mailto:bob@teraspeed.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:36 PM To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis@eda.org Cc: bob@teraspeed.com Subject: RE: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter and Noise Parameters Arpad: Thanks for catching this. The paragraph also contains a self-reference to a BIRD. I would reword the last clause from Note: The EDA Tool/Simulator shall use the values of these Jitter and Noise parameters directly if they are Usage Info. If they are Usage Out, then the EDA Tool/Simulator shall use their values generated by AMI_Init. The model's AMI_GetWave function may return different values for these parameters than the values returned by AMI_Init; the EDA Tool/Simulator may report the values of such parameters to the user, but the EDA Tool/Simulator may not change any inputs to AMI models or change other result of the simulation based on the values returned for the parameters in this BIRD by AMI_GetWave. To Note: The EDA Tool/Simulator shall use the values of the Jitter and Noise parameters directly if they are Usage Info. If they are Usage Out, then the EDA Tool/Simulator shall use their values generated by AMI_Init. The model's AMI_GetWave function may return different values for these parameters than the values returned by AMI_Init; the EDA Tool/Simulator may report the values of such parameters to the user, but the EDA Tool/Simulator may not change any input to AMI models or change any result of the simulation based on the values returned for the Jitter and Noise parameters by AMI_GetWave. Is this ok? Bob From: owner-ibis@eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis@eda.org] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:52 AM To: ibis@eda.org Subject: [IBIS] RE: BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter and Noise Parameters Thanks to the authors of this BIRD for the quick actions. I would like to request that the following sentence be corrected, because it is grammatically incorrect, and because of that not clear (red emphasis added to point to the problem area): ".but the EDA Tool/Simulator may not change any inputs to AMI models or change other result of the simulation based on the values returned." Thanks, Arpad ========================================================== From: owner-ibis@eda.org [mailto:owner-ibis@eda.org] On Behalf Of Mirmak, Michael Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 9:23 PM To: ibis@eda.org Subject: [IBIS] BIRD162: Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter and Noise Parameters BIRD162, Change to Usage "Info, Out" for AMI Jitter and Noise Parameters, has been posted on behalf of Bob Ross of Teraspeed Consulting Group, Walter Katz of Signal Integrity Software (SiSoft), and Fangyi Rao of Agilent Technologies. The text may be found at http://www.eda.org/ibis/birds/bird162.docx (the text is not attached here due to a reflector policy prohibition on attachments). The BIRD will be introduced at the next IBIS Open Forum teleconference. A complete list of BIRDs, including the status of each, is available at: http://www.eda.org/ibis/birds/ Michael Mirmak Intel Corp. Chair, IBIS Open Forum -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> 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 mikelabonte@eda-stds.org |or ibis-request@eda-stds.org | |IBIS reflector archives exist under: | | http://www.eda-stds.org/ibis/email_archive/ Recent | http://www.eda-stds.org/ibis/users_archive/ Recent | http://www.eda-stds.org/ibis/email/ E-mail since 1993Received on Thu Jul 11 14:30:53 2013
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 11 2013 - 14:31:31 PDT