[ibis-macro] Re: AMI-init should pass modified IR to getwave....
- From: Taranjit Kukal <kukal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx" <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:23:23 +0530
Hi Walter,
I meant model-makers who want to use both init and getwave in conjunction for
transient flow v/s those who want to do everything in getwave.
Apologize if this statement was confusing..
Rgds
From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 02:25 PM
To: Taranjit Kukal; 'IBIS-ATM' <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] AMI-init should pass modified IR to getwave....
Kukal,
Who are “those” in you statement “those who want to leverage init as complement
to getwave and those who want to keep statistical-flow purely independent.”
Walter
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Taranjit Kukal
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:04 AM
To: 'IBIS-ATM'
Subject: [ibis-macro] AMI-init should pass modified IR to getwave....
Hi All,
When I was implementing AMI model, I found a situation where it was important
that Rx ami_init needed to pass modified-IR to getwave function.
Reason was that Chip-RDL-routing was available as Impulse-Responses.
Removal for “Use_Init_Output” to make Statistical-flow independent of
Transient-flow, is going to break the original intent where init and getwave
were supposed to work in conjunction with each other handling linear and
non-linear filtering portions respectively (as shown below)
[cid:image001.png@01CD49E9.D6F94380]
I would go back to Arpad’s suggestion (year 2010) for having two
Impulse-responses coming out of ami_init
- One that goes to EDA tool for statistical flow
- One that gets passed to getwave to allow splitting of
modeling-effort across init and getwave and make things easy for linear filters.
BIRD120 was brought up that deprecates use of “use_init_output” with a view to
keep statistical and time-domain simulations independent. But as I think more,
we need to allow both capabilities. It absolutely does not make sense to
implement simple linear filters within getwave when we can convolute the
filter-IR with channel-IR. We should take all steps to make modeling easy and
ensure enough flexibility.
This way, we cover both the scenarios – those who want to leverage init as
complement to getwave and those who want to keep statistical-flow purely
independent. Since this does not bring any disadvantage, I strongly feel that
we all re-consider outputting two modified-IRs out of init function – one for
statistical-flow and another one to complement getwave filtering.
Rgds
..kukal
Other related posts:
