
IBIS Macromodel Task Group

Meeting date: 22 May 2012

Members (asterisk for those attending):
Agilent:                      Fangyi Rao
                            * Radek Biernacki
Altera:                     * David Banas
Andrew Joy Consulting:        Andy Joy
Ansys:                        Samuel Mertens
                            * Dan Dvorscak
                            * Curtis Clark
Arrow Electronics:            Ian Dodd
Cadence Design Systems:       Terry Jernberg
                            * Ambrish Varma
                              Feras Al-Hawari
Celsionix:                    Kellee Crisafulli
Cisco Systems:                Ashwin Vasudevan
                              Syed Huq
Ericsson:                     Anders Ekholm
IBM:                        * Greg Edlund
Intel:                        Michael Mirmak
LSI Logic:                    Wenyi Jin
Maxim Integrated Products:    Mahbubul Bari
Mentor Graphics:            * John Angulo
                              Zhen Mu
                            * Arpad Muranyi
                              Vladimir Dmitriev-Zdorov
Micron Technology:            Randy Wolff
NetLogic Microsystems:        Ryan Couts
Nokia-Siemens Networks:     * Eckhard Lenski
QLogic Corp.                  James Zhou
Sigrity:                      Brad Brim
                            * Kumar Keshavan
                            * Ken Willis
SiSoft:                       Walter Katz
                              Todd Westerhoff
                              Doug Burns
                            * Mike LaBonte
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:

- None

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

- None

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

- Arpad submit BIRD 123.3 draft 3 to Open Forum
  - Done

- Bob propose method for parameter passing
  - In progress

- Arpad revise BIRD 117 and 118 to generalize parameter file references
  - In progress

- Ambrish update BIRD 145 for pad to pin mapping and other clarifications
  - This is tabled, waiting for the outcome of other issues

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

Discussion of -1 markers for end of clock_times:
- Arpad: Michael M. pointed out that this violates the requirement for
  monotonically increasing times.
  - There is no problem if we consider the end marker not part of the data

What does CDR return when clock goes out of sync?
- Arpad: This raises a question whether the tool should raise a flag to end the simulation
- Kumar: We should not dictate what EDA tools do
- Ambrish: The real question is how to know if it has gone out of sync
- Arpad: Should we allow other numbers after a -1?
- Kumar: No that is a terminator
- Arpad: Should tools keep printing values even after lock is lost?
  - If the RX prints nothing what should the tool do?
- Kumar: There is no requirement for clock_times
- Arpad: What if it suddenly starts working late?
- Kumar: There is no problem
  - The spec is good as-is

Arpad showed Parameter Tree Keyword BIRD draft 1:
- Arpad deleted "select" in Description
- Arpad: It should appear before [Component] or at end of file
- Kumar: Can there be multiple instances of this?
- Arpad: No, one section can hold all trees
- Kumar: It might be good to have one in each [Model]
- Arpad: It is scoped at top level
- Mike: It says it is scoped at Component level
- Arpad changed the wording
- Radek: It could say "top keyword hierarchy level"
- Arpad changed the wording

BIRD 121.2 draft:
- Arpad: We were unable to resolve a dispute
  - Walter removed the controversial ".report file" part
  - A motion would be needed to untable
- No motion at this time

BIRD 150:
- Arpad: Comments and questions can be made here or by email

BIRD 117/118:
- Arpad: Discussion stopped a month ago
- Arpad showed BIRD 117 draft 3
- Arpad: Ambrish pointed out that this could point to an unrelated AMI file
  - It can point to non-AMI files, so why restrict which AMI to point to?
- Mike: Agree, there should be no special restriction for AMI files
- Radek: There are questions why another AMI file would be used
- Ambrish: There might be cut and paste errors
  - The "wrong" file might accidentally be present, but it is still wrong
- Arpad: The parser might warn for this
- Greg: What is the need for an external parameter file?
- Arpad: ISS can have parameters passed in
  - AMI style parameter trees are an easy way to store them
  - If the ISS is external it's parameters probably would be too
  - This is an old AR of mine
- Radek: This says nothing about Model_Specific or Reserved_Parameter branches
  - We need consistency about collapsing these branches
- Ambrish: There would be no Reserved_Parameters used here anyway
- Arpad: We do not require root names, and things like usage are stripped off anyway
- Ambrish: There should be nothing between the root name and bottom parameter
- Arpad: Mike LaBonte pointed out that the same name can appear in two trees
- Ambrish: We should disallow that
  - We would not be using Reserved_Parameters
- Arpad: We still need to describe context-specific rules
  - Should there be a branch called ISS?
- Radek: We will probably never use Reserved_Parameter for this
- Arpad: Since we allow AMI files to be used we should not impose other restrictions
  - Other files do not require Model_Specific or Reserved_Parameters
- Radek: Those keywords could be left out
- Mike: What if Mode appears both under DFE and CDR, for example?
- Radek: The syntax has those paths spelled out
- Arpad: If we don't require the Model_Specific/Reserved_Parameters level, do we allow them?
- Ambrish: Spelling out the path seems redundant
- Mike: It would be best for the parser not to make reading an AMI file a special case
- Radek: We should at least make clear that Model_Specific is not needed for non-AMI files
- Arpad suggested a change that would clarify this

-------------
Next meeting: 29 May 2012 12:00pm PT

Next agenda:
1) Task list item discussions

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

1) Simulator directives
