IBIS Macromodel Task Group

Meeting date: 28 April 2015

Members (asterisk for those attending):
ANSYS:                        Dan Dvorscak
                            * Curtis Clark
Avago (LSI)                   Xingdong Dai
                            * Bob Miller
Cadence Design Systems:       Ambrish Varma
                              Brad Brim
                              Kumar Keshavan
                              Ken Willis
eASIC                         David Banas
Ericsson:                     Anders Ekholm
IBM                           Steve Parker
Intel:                      * Michael Mirmak
Keysight Technologies:      * Fangyi Rao
                            * Radek Biernacki
			    * Nicholas Tzou
Maxim Integrated Products:    Hassan Rafat
Mentor Graphics:            * John Angulo
                            * Arpad Muranyi
Micron Technology:          * Randy Wolff
                              Justin Butterfield
QLogic Corp.                  James Zhou
                              Andy Joy
eASIC                         Marc Kowalski
SiSoft:                       Walter Katz
                              Todd Westerhoff
                            * Mike LaBonte
Synopsys                      Rita Horner
Teraspeed Consulting Group:   Scott McMorrow
Teraspeed Labs:             * Bob Ross

(Note: Agilent has changed to Keysight)

The meeting was led by Arpad Muranyi.

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

- None

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

- None


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

- Walter send back-channel BIRD drafts to Mike for posting.
  - Done.

- Arpad, Randy and Radek prepare Define Package Model BIRD draft ready for Open Forum.
  - Still discussing details.

- Michael M update AMI Directionality BIRD
  - No update

- Arpad to review IBIS specification for min max issues.
  - In progress.


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


Define Package Modeling Clarifications/Enhancements BIRD:

- Bob R: We are pretty close, just fine tuning now.
- Radek: We should discuss the new items.


Back-channel/Optimization BIRD:

- Arpad: Ambrish said Cadence is still studying the new proposals.
- Fangyi: On page 4 the sentence at the bottom might be missing a word.
- Mike: The word "supports" might be missing from the sentence.
- Radek: Would it do training flow or regular flow when calling Init after GetWave?

- Fangyi: The table on page 5 is hard to understand.
  - Two of the values are "Yes" and "Disabled".
  - Should "Yes" be "Enabled"?
- Mike L: Possibly. The table needs more description.

- Fangyi: On page 6 what do the Training/Analysis lists mean?
- Bob M: Some users may want statistical analysis after Init training.
- Arpad: This may answer the question about models that support both.

- Fangyi: Is the BCI_Init_After_GetWave parameter really needed?
- Bob M: It is valid to have that parameter.
  - There can be some "sleight of hand" in the first Init call.
  - We need to make sure Init has the same data after GetWave training.
- Mike L: Does the EDA tool need to do anything?
- Bob M: It is mostly the model.
  - The settings from GetWave should be passed to Init.
  - We have not processed parameters from GetWave before.
  - The model might already have this though if Init and GetWave share data.
- Fangyi: Do we need BCI_Init_After_GetWave if the model preserves its state?
- Bob M: It might not be needed then.



AMI Directionality BIRD:

- Michael M: We have reduced new Reserved_Parameters to just AMI_Model_Type.
  - A single DLL can have both TX and RX, but separate AMI files are needed.
  - A table describes which are TX and which are RX parameters.
  - Some are both.
  - Much of this has been simplified.
  - Would like a vote of approval here, to submit to Open Forum.
- Arpad: This is the April 14 posting to our work archive?
- Michael M: Yes.

- Bob R: Is it illegal to have an I/O AMI model without The Direction parameter?
- Michael M: True. That should not impact existing models.
- Mike L: IBISCHK would have to check the AMI file for each [Algorithmic Model].
- Michael M: It is a three way consistency check.
- Bob R: This would not be checked for 6.0 models.
- Michael M: Right.
  - Another possibility would be to not require Direction for I/O models.
  - But the point of the BIRD is to take away ambiguity.
- Mike L: Which version matters, [IBIS Ver] or AMI_Version?
- Michael M: It should be the [IBIS Ver].
  - The first level check takes place in the IBIS file.
  - If there is a conflict it will be flagged.

- Radek: Do we need AMI_Model_Type in the AMI file at all?
- Michael M:  There are two types of checks:
  - One check is for consistency between the IBIS and AMI files.
  - Another check is not having both TX & RX parameters in the same AMI file.
- Radek: If you mix them today the parser does not detect a problem.
- Michael M: We could ditch AMI_Model_Type if we publish a table.
  - Is that OK?
- Radek: We should be able to do this by checking the contents of the AMI file.
- Arpad: That will work only without both directions in one AMI file.
- Michael M: The BIRD requires separate AMI files.
  - This is like the Touchstone [Number of Frequencies] parameter.
  - It's a nice crosscheck.
- Arpad: It is useful for Touchstone files because the data could be long.
  - AMI files are short.
- Mike L: What can IBISCHK use to detect accidental I/O Model_type in the IBIS file?
- Michael M: The Direction subparameter has to appear.
  - We can check the AMI Reserved_Parameters too.

AR: Michael M test to see what ibischk does with existing keywords related to model direction.


Michael M reminded all to cast their vote on the new Policies and Procedures document.


-------------
Next meeting: 5 May 2015 12:00pm PT
-------------

IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:

1) Simulator directives
