IBIS Macromodel Task Group

Meeting date: 07 September 2010

Members (asterisk for those attending):
  Adge Hawes, IBM
* Ambrish Varma, Cadence Design Systems
* Anders Ekholm, Ericsson
* Arpad Muranyi, Mentor Graphics Corp.
  Barry Katz, SiSoft
* Bob Ross, Teraspeed Consulting Group
  Brad Brim, Sigrity
  Brad Griffin, Cadence Design Systems
  Chris Herrick, Ansoft
  Chris McGrath, Synopsys
  Danil Kirsanov, Ansoft
  David Banas, Xilinx
  Deepak Ramaswany, Ansoft
  Donald Telian, consultant
  Doug White, Cisco Systems
* Eckhard Lenski, Nokia-Siemens Networks
  Eckhard Miersch, Sigrity
  Essaid Bensoudane, ST Microelectronics
* Fangyi Rao, Agilent
  Ganesh Narayanaswamy, ST Micro
  Gang Kang, Sigrity
  Hemant Shah, Cadence Design Systems
  Ian Dodd, consultant
  Jerry Chuang, Xilinx
  Joe Abler, IBM
* John Angulo, Mentor Graphics
  John Shields, Mentor Graphics
* Ken Willis, Sigrity
  Kellee Crisafulli, Celsionix
  Kumar Keshavan, Sigrity
  Lance Wang, Cadence Design Systems
  Luis Boluna, Cisco Systems
  Michael Mirmak, Intel Corp.
* Mike LaBonte, Cisco Systems
  Mike Steinberger, SiSoft
  Mustansir Fanaswalla, Xilinx
  Patrick O'Halloran, Tiburon Design Automation
  Paul Fernando, NCSU
  Pavani Jella, TI
  Radek Biernacki, Agilent (EESof)
  Randy Wolff, Micron Technology
  Ray Komow, Cadence Design Systems
  Richard Mellitz, Intel
  Richard Ward, Texas Instruments
  Samuel Mertens, Ansoft
  Sam Chitwood, Sigrity
  Sanjeev Gupta, Agilent
  Scott McMorrow, Teraspeed Consulting Group
  Shangli Wu, Cadence Design Systems
  Sid Singh, Extreme Networks
  Stephen Scearce, Cisco Systems
  Steve Kaufer, Mentor Graphics
  Steve Pytel, Ansoft
  Syed Huq, Cisco Systems
  Syed Sadeghi, ST Micro
  Ted Mido, Synopsys
  Terry Jernberg, Cadence Design Systems
* Todd Westerhoff, SiSoft
  Vladimir Dmitriev-Zdorov, Mentor Graphics
  Vikas Gupta, Xilinx
  Vuk Borich, Agilent
* Walter Katz, SiSoft
  Wenyi Jin, LSI Logic
  Zhen Mu, Mentor Graphics

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opens:

- none

--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:

- none

-------------
Review of ARs:

- Walter: Send updated Labels BIRD to Mike for posting
  - Done

- Authors of Flow BIRD: Correct text in flow BIRDs
  - Done

- Arpad:  Write parameter passing syntax proposal (BIRD draft)
          for  -AMS models in IBIS that is consistent with the
          parameter passing syntax of the AMI models

- TBD:    Propose a parameter passing syntax for the SPICE
          - [External ...] also?
          - TBD

- Arpad:  Review the documentation (annotation) in the macro libraries.
          - Deferred until a demand arises or we have nothing else to do

-------------
New Discussion:

Arpad reviewed the IBIS-ATM pending task list spreadsheet and BIRDs that are
expected to follow from it:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 15 - string parameters - this should be addressed in Arpad's definitions BIRD
Row 19 (new) - new BIRD to address consistency issues with Usage, Type and Format
Row 29 - the Flow BIRD currently in progress
Row 32 - clarifications on impulse matrix modification - where does the aggressor data come from?
Row 34 - impulse response generation & role of the analog model in same
Row 35 - parameter string issues
Row 40 - add version number to .ami file

Bob noted that IBISCHK5 currently requires (Description) for
Reserved_Parameters and considers (Description) optional for
Model_Specific parameters, which is probably the opposite of the original
intent.  If we want to change that, we should make it clear in the
spec and let parser updates follow from there.


Discussion on the Flow BIRD:
----------------------------
Step 2: Text needs to include that the TX model's AMI_Init function will be executed.

Discussion under note after step 6b (case with Dual TX & Init-only RX):

Ken: Not clear why TX_Init is being called in time-domain simulation when TX_Getwave exists
Todd: TX_Init has to be called to set up model, has no knowledge that TX_Getwave will be called later
Walter: Issue is RX_Init, not TX_init
Arpad: RX_Init needs effect of TX EQ from TX_Init if it is to optimize itself properly
Ambrish: EDA tool knows what the .AMI file states and can ignore the modified
impulse response if appropriate.
- Flow BIRD was modified to reflect this.
Ken: Expected that in a Dual TX model Flow EDA tool would not deliver modified
impulse response to RX_Init
Walter: Output of TX_Init must always be delivered to RX_Init - simulator
doesn't know whether RX optimizes or not
Ken: Why not have the default flow simply assume RX doesn't optimize?
Ambrish: Why not have a Parameter that says the RX Performs Optimization?
Walter: If RX_Init Optimizes, the EQ configuration will be wrong
Ken: Use can sweep RX settings to find the optimum settings
Fangyi: The number of settings to be explored is large
Ken: Expect that semi vendor would supply RX_Getwave in this case
Fangyi: Some vendors only want to supply linearized models, even for DFE circuits
Arpad: EDA tools can use Getwave_Exists to control how impulse responses are
passed or not passed (See Arpad's flow diagrams 7,8,9).
- These were set aside when we selected Walter's flow diagram.
Ambrish: Arpad and Walter's flows were essentially the same except for the
case requiring deconvolution.
Todd: Three ways to attack this
  - Reference flow assumes RX may implement optimization [requires deconvolution]
  - Reference flow assumes RX does not perform optimization [does not require deconvolution]
  - Add information (Parameter or other) that lets the simulation
    understand whether RX Optimization exists and behave accordingly

Next meeting: 14 Sep 2010 12:00pm PT

--------

IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:

1) Simulator directives
