IBIS Macromodel Task Group

Meeting date: 10 May 2011

Members (asterisk for those attending):
Agilent:                      Fangyi Rao
                            * Radek Biernacki
Ansoft:                       Chris Herrick
                              Danil Kirsanov
Ansys:                        Samuel Mertens
                            * Dan Dvorscak
                              Deepak Ramaswamy
                              Jianhua Gu
                            * Curtis Clark
Arrow Electronics:            Ian Dodd
Cadence Design Systems:       Terry Jernberg
                              Ambrish Varma
Celsionix:                    Kellee Crisafulli
Cisco Systems:              * Mike LaBonte
                              Stephen Scearce
                              Ashwin Vasudevan
Ericsson:                     Anders Ekholm
IBM:                          Greg Edlund
Intel:                      * Michael Mirmak
LSI Logic:                    Wenyi Jin
Mentor Graphics:              John Angulo
                              Vladimir Dmitriev-Zdorov
                              Zhen Mu
                            * Arpad Muranyi
Micron Technology:            Randy Wolff
NetLogic Microsystems:        Ryan Couts
Nokia-Siemens Networks:     * Eckhard Lenski
Sigrity:                      Brad Brim
                              Kumar Keshavan
                            * Ken Willis
SiSoft:                     * Walter Katz
                              Mike Steinberger
                            * Todd Westerhoff
			      Doug Burns
Snowbush IP:                  Marcus Van Ierssel
ST Micro:                     Syed Sadeghi
Teraspeed Consulting Group:   Scott McMorrow
                              Bob Ross
TI:                           Casey Morrison
                              Alfred Chong
Vitesse Semiconductor:        Eric Sweetman
Xilinx:                       Mustansir Fanaswalla

The meeting was lead by Arpad Muranyi

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

- Arpad: MM would like to plan what should go into 5.1/5.2

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

- None

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

- Bob write a BIRD on correcting Table 1-3 in the spec.  (Row 23).
  - In progress, on hold

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

Michael M showed a list of active BIRDs:
- Some technical changes may be important enough to include with editorial
  changes
- They may be easier described with advanced graphics
- Consensus that editorial plus some critical changes might go into 5.1
- Radek: The AMI_Version param should not be deferred
- MM: 5.2 might follow 5.1 closely
- Arpad: 5.1 should have AMI_Version to be safe
- MM: We also should consider how much the parser would change

Arpad: No plan to discuss the Out/InOut BIRD today:
- Arpad is still working on it
- Ken: Parameters with Usage = IBIS-ISS should really be Model_Specific
- Arpad: Yes it could be done either way
  - With Model_Specific the tool is just passing data to the IBIS-ISS
    subcircuit, which is another model
  - If Info is included as not allowed for Model_Specific then we could not
    pass parameters to IBIS-ISS subcircuits
- Ken: Things like corners will dictate what parameters are passed to the
  IBIS-ISS subcircuit
- Todd: Ken is correct
- Arpad: Only a single value is passed to the IBIS-ISS subcircuit

Arpad showed the Table BIRD from Bob Ross:
- Bob is at the European IBIS summit this week
- We could schedule this for a vote next week
- Entire tables are sent by the model
- Arpad: I added the sentence that parentheses are remove after flattening
- Multiple calls to GetWave are clarified
- Radek: There is an inconsistency between:
  "A table is sent to/from"
  "number of rows returned by the executable model"
- Arpad: This should be corrected
  - Bob removed a paragraph because it repeated the spec

AR: Arpad update Table BIRD

Arpad showed the task list:
- Row 51: Init and GetWave are described differently
  - This should be fixed for 5.1
- Arpad showed the IBIS 5.0 spec section 3.1.2.6
  - It doesn't say if parameters are required or optional
  - 3.2.2.4 says AMI_parameters_out is optional
- Radek: It can be a null pointer or an empty string
- Arpad: This should be a 5.1 change
- Mike L and Radek agreed, no objections

- Arpad: Should row 52 be done after 5.1?
- Walter: That is OK

- Arpad: Should we drop row 53?
- Walter: We should keep it
- Arpad: Bob's Table BIRD may cover this, but this is about List
- No objection to putting this in 5.1

- Row 54: We need to spell out that Corner is reserved
- Tools' existing typ/min/max mechanism should be used, not a new UI control
- Walter: Agree

- Row 55: Can this go into 5.1?
- No objection

- Row 56: Can this go into 5.1?
- No objection

- Row 57: Can this go into 5.1?
- Default values make no sense for Out parameters
- No objection

- Row 58: This should go after 5.1
- This is already in the In/InOut BIRD
- No objection

- Row 59: Can this go into 5.1?
- Walter: This changes existing functionality
- Radek: We can decide later
- It will be after 5.1
- No objection

- Row 60: Can this go into 5.1?
- No objection

- Row 61: Can this go into 5.1?
- Walter: This should go into 5.1
- No objection to that

Walter showed "Time Domain GetWave Flow":
- The jitter BIRD introduces several parameters
- BIRD 120 adds clock_times input to CDR
- Arpad: This goes with BIRD 120?
- Walter: Yes

AR: Walter send Time Domain GetWave Flow diagram for posting

Walter showed the "AMI Backchannel Response to Sigrity/Gennun" presentation:
- There can be a list of backchannel protocols
- Reserved params are in red (page 3)
- Branches under protocol name (pages 4 and 5):
  - Simulator_Commands, mostly training information
    - These are owned by IBIS (reserved, colored in brown)
  - GetWave_Commands
    - EDA tool does not need to know about these
- This information could be in an external file
- Stimulus patterns defined on age 6
  - Can use binary, hex, octal
- Parameter passing flow example on page 7
  - Tools could record these and show to user
- Page 9: A protocol registry is needed
  - There can be unregistered too
- Ken: Is this feedback on our BIRD or a replacement?
- Walter: Would like to work on a joint BIRD
  - Both proposals use BIRD 128

AR: Walter send Backchannel proposal for posting

-------------
Next meeting: 24 May 2011 12:00pm PT

Next agenda:
1) Task list item discussions

-------------
IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:

1) Simulator directives
