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

  • From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:19:13 -0700

Kumar,

I don't understand why it matters whether the modification is
done by convolution or a different algorithm inside the Init
function as long as it is an LTI function.  (If this weren't
an LTI function, it would have to be in the GetWave function
anyway).  To me it seems that this would only matter if the
Init function doesn't do it (Init_Returns_Impulse = False),
expecting the EDA tool to do it instead which may only be able
to do a convolution.  Could you please explain to me how this
applies to this discussion?

On the second point, "The larger more issue still stands. i.e.
the potential of getting two different results for the same model",
I think you worded it incorrectly.  We are talking about two
different MODELS in one FILE.  (One model being the LTI "approximation
model" or Stateye model as others called it, and the other being
the non-LTI "accurate model" or the TD model as others called it).
As such, I would not expect the two MODELS (which happen to be
delivered in one executable FILE to give me the same results...
We have numerous examples for this being done in our life.

In IBIS we have [Ramp] together with V-t tables inside the same
[Model] keyword (making two different models), in CAD tools
there is this concept of "top-down" design methodology (with
multiple views, i.e. models containing different levels of modeling
details and/or algorithms for the same device and/or project),
in VHDL-AMS we have multiple "architectures" for the same
"entity", etc...  I would never expect these variants to give
the same results, even if they happen to be in the same file...

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

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ckumar
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:50 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad
Cc: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: AMI_Flows_6.pdf for today's ATM teleconference

<DD7A9A95166BF4418C4C1EB2033B6EE20227F23D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <5c023dc83727c256d78a8ba0181a9291@xxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Sender: ckumar@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I believe Fangyi is pointing out cases where modified (impulse) response
exists, However it is not the result of convolution with a filter

The larger more issue still stands. i.e  the potential of getting two
different results for the same model
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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