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

  • From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "IBIS-ATM" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:37:31 -0700

Ambrish,
 
I think you meant "Time-variant" in a few places where you wrote
"Time-invariant"... but aside from that I am not sure what this
has to do with Walter's comment about what goes into Rx_Init.
Can you explain how these two topics are related?
 
Thanks,
 
Arpad
==================================================================

________________________________

From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ambrish Varma
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:32 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: AMI_Flows_6.pdf for today's ATM teleconference



Hi Arpad, 

The spec is very clear in delineating between Linear, Time-invariant
model and Nonlinear, and /or Time-invariant models. (section 2, chapter
10). It was expected that a non linear/time-invariant model would not
try and model an approximation of the same algorithm in the Init
function. Also, a linear model would not have a getwave function.

 

Thanks,

Ambrish. 

 

________________________________

From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 6:08 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: AMI_Flows_6.pdf for today's ATM teleconference

 

Walter,

 

Thanks for your feedback.  I think you just made us discover another

discrepancy in the spec.  Contrast what you quoted with this from

the IBIS specification:

 

 

 

 

What do you suggest we should do about this?

 

Arpad

========================================================================

 

________________________________

From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 4:27 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; IBIS-ATM
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: AMI_Flows_6.pdf for today's ATM
teleconference

Arpad,

 

In the IBIS 5.0 specification:

 

|               Use_Init_Output:

|

|               Use_Init_Output is of usage Info and type Boolean.  When

|               Use_Init_Output is set to "True", the EDA tool is

|               instructed to use the output impulse response from the

|               AMI_Init function when creating the input waveform

|               presented to the AMI_Getwave function.

|

|               If the Reserved Parameter, Use_Init_Output, is set to

|               "False", EDA tools will use the original (unfiltered)

|               impulse response of the channel when creating the input

|               waveform presented to the AMI_Getwave function.

|

|               The algorithmic model is expected to modify the waveform
in

|               place.

|  

|               Use_Init_Output is optional. The default value for this

|               parameter is "True".

|

|               If Use_Init_Output is False, GetWave_Exists must be
True.

 

In what was agreed to in November, the input the Rx_Init was always
hAC(t) X hTEI(t).

In what you presented this week, the input to Rx_Init is either hAC(t)
or hAC(t) X hTEI(t), depending on the value of Tx Use_init_Output. I
believe based on the IBIS 5.0 specification above that the November flow
is correct and the Spec. correction flow that you presented this week is
incorrect.

 

Walter

 

Walter Katz

303.449-2308

Mobile 720.333-1107

wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx

www.sisoft.com

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 12:48 AM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: AMI_Flows_6.pdf for today's ATM teleconference

 

Here is the AMI_Flows_6.pdf file once again.  I made

the changes which were suggested to me in the last ATM

meeting.  This flow includes only the correction we

wanted to make on the existing spec flow.

 

I am not sure what the decision was about the last two

slides which deal with the Rx pad waveform.  Did we

say we would delete these slides altogether and not

address this capability in this BIRD?  As far as I can

tell, we can't achieve this flow without deconvolution...

 

Please familiarize yourselves with these slides, because

I would like to achieve closure on this flow in the ATM

teleconference tomorrow.  Comments are welcome before or

at the meeting.

 

Thanks,

 

Arpad

=========================================================

 

________________________________

From: Muranyi, Arpad 
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:39 PM
To: 'IBIS-ATM'
Subject: AMI_Flows_6.pdf for today's ATM teleconference

For those who are unable to join the meeting via

LiveMeeting, here is a new flow diagram to aid the

discussion on the subject.

 

Arpad

==================================================

JPEG image

JPEG image

Other related posts:

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