[ibis-macro] Re: AMI_Flows_6.pdf for today's ATM teleconference

  • From: Ambrish Varma <ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:30:14 -0700

"The comments we are getting from Kumar and Ken indicates that they would 
prefer to further simplify the flow, not allowing for the dual nature of LTI 
and non-LTI coexisting together in the same model."

But we already have that intention in sections 2.1 and 2.2. and other parts of 
the spec - ie - no getwave if model is linear and can be described in init.

I stumbled upon an email that Danil wrote to Fangyi last year that says it 
pretty nicely.

---
Fangyi,

Could you please clarify it? I agree that it might be reasonable to put the 
linear part of the model in Init and non-linear part in Getwave, so that 
together they characterize the model (statistical simulator uses only the 
linear part, while the pattern-dependent always uses both).

But I strongly disagree that inside one model Init and GetWave can provide 
different approximations of the same algorithm (i.e. introducing 
double-counting), where statistical simulator uses Init and pattern-dependent 
simulator uses GetWave. I believe this behavior should be prohibited, since it 
makes the flow more complicated, and we can easily achieve the same result 
providing two different models (or having internal option to switch the model 
between the statistical and non-linear mode).

If we have this simple rule (non-linear simulator we always uses Init and 
Getwave), the behavior of the EDA does not depend on the fact whether GetWave 
exists or not, and GetWaveExists flag becomes unnecessary (if the Simulator at 
some point figures out there is no GetWave, it just does not use it).

Are we on the same page here?

Best,

Danil

---

Another important data point is the default value of Use_Init_Output. It  was 
set to be true because we did not expected double counting by having same or 
similar algorithms in Init and Getwave.

Thanks,
Ambrish.


-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 12:37 AM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: AMI_Flows_6.pdf for today's ATM teleconference

That's exactly what I presented in the flow diagram I
prepared for today, but we are still not in agreement.

The comments we are getting from Walter indicate that
the entire flow is flawed and he suggests to go back
to the flow we finished in November.  The comments we
are getting from Kumar and Ken indicates that they
would prefer to further simplify the flow, not allowing
for the dual nature of LTI and non-LTI coexisting
together in the same model.

How shall we resolve this disagreement?

Arpad
========================================================




-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ambrish Varma
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 11:27 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: AMI_Flows_6.pdf for today's ATM teleconference

Arpad,
What Kumar, Ken and I are trying to say (along with a few others, I
believe) is that the flow, as described in section 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of
chapter 10, works, and the only clarification (correction) that is
needed is the Tx_Getwave issue.
Adding any other flow is unnecessary and will add to more confusion.

It will also go against the main goal of the ATM committee as set by
you.

Regards,
Ambrish.

-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 11:23 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: AMI_Flows_6.pdf for today's ATM teleconference

Kumar,

I heard this from you and Ken and others before, and I
have already responded to it more than once that making
a change of this nature is a "new feature" as far as the
specification is concerned, so I am simply not going
to entertain the idea, at least not with this BIRD and
this discussion.

Arpad
=========================================================



-----Original Message-----
From: ckumar [mailto:ckumar@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 8:59 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad
Cc: IBIS-ATM
Subject: Re: [ibis-macro] Re: AMI_Flows_6.pdf for today's ATM
teleconference

Sigrity is of the view models employing getwave preferabley should be
using init only for parameter passing. This will greatly simplify the
flow,
minimize confusion  and more importantly will not potentially result in
the
problem of the same model yielding two different results.

A useful analogy is getwve vs init similar as silicon vs behavior
circuit
models
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website  :  http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector:  //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
  To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: unsubscribe

---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website  :  http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector:  //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
  To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: unsubscribe

---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website  :  http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector:  //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
  To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: unsubscribe

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. ibis-macro
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2010