Justin,
In my example, one cannot simulate pins 2,3,4,5. One can only simulate
1,2,3 or 3,4,5. The intent of these models is for the EDA tool to simulate
2 as a victim with 1 and 3 as aggressors, and a separate simulation for
pin 4 with pins 3 and 5 as aggressors. If the package vendor wanted to do
a simulation with all 100 pins he would have to create a 200 terminal
model with all coupling.
The intent is to describe the terminals of a IBIS-ISS subckts (or
Touchstone files).
The algorithm for selecting models to do a simulation is simple. The user
selects a list of pins he wants included in his simulation as victims. The
EDA tool makes a list of models that have these pins as victims (there can
only be one such model per pin). If there are no models with one of these
pins as a victim, then add a model with this pin as an aggressor. There is
problematic if a pin that is requested to simulate is not a victim in any
model, and is an aggressor in two or more models. This simulation cannot
be done if any pin occurs in two different models (either as victim or
aggressor).
IC vendor understands the simulations that his customers either need or
want to do, and it is the responsibility of the IC vendor to put models in
a group that when the group is selected the user can generate the
simulations he intends to run.
Walter
Walter Katz
<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx> wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
978.461-0449 x 133
Mobile 303.335-6156
From: Justin Butterfield (jdbutterfiel) [mailto:jdbutterfiel@xxxxxxxxxx] ;
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 12:57 PM
To: wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx; IBIS-Interconnect <ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [EXT] [ibis-macro] FW: "Aggressors"
Walter,
I have a hopefully simple question:
If all 100 of these 6 terminal models are in one Group, and I want to run
a simulation with that Group and all 100 pins. How do you connect up
those 6 terminal models in a netlist for all 100 pins? I am just
wondering how do handle the overlap of models.
For instance, your model Pin_1 has terminals Pin 2 and Pad 2 as
Aggressors. Model Pin_2 would also have Pin 2 and Pad 2 but as a Victim.
And model Pin_3 would have terminals Pin 2 and Pad 2 as Aggressors. How
do you connect models Pin_1, Pin_2, and Pin_3 considering the overlapping
of the terminals?
Thanks,
Justin
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter Katz
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 9:20 AM
To: IBIS-Interconnect <ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >; IBIS-ATM
<ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: [EXT] [ibis-macro] FW: "Aggressors"
From: Walter Katz [mailto:walter.m.katz@xxxxxxxxx] ;
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 10:02 AM
To: 'IBIS-Interconnect' <ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: "Aggressors"
All,
For our discussion about Aggressor rules in Groups, I would like us to
consider the following common example:
Consider a 100 pin component (for simplicity I am assuming that all 100
pins are I/O and they are numbered from 1 to 100. Routing is done on one
layer, and each pin has 99% of its crosstalk from the connection on the
pin on either side. The package layout tools generates 100 Models, one for
each pin. Each Model has 6 terminals, two terminals are the Pin and Pad of
the "Victim" pin and two "Aggressor" terminals for the Pin and Pad for the
pins on either side of the "Victim" pin. For example,
1. Model "Pin_25" would have terminals Pin 25 and Pad 25 as
"Victim", and Terminals Pin 24, Pad 24, Pin 26 and Pad 27 as "Aggressors"
2. Model "Pin_1" would have terminals Pin 1 and Pad 1 as "Victim",
and Terminals Pin 2, Pad 2, Pin 100 and Pad 100 as "Aggressors"
3. Model "Pin_100" would have terminals Pin 100 and Pad 100 as
"Victim", and Terminals Pin 1, Pad 1, Pin 99 and Pad 99 as "Aggressors"
Every I/O pin has one Model with its terminals as a Victim, and two Models
with its terminals as Aggressors.
I claim that this should not generate any errors or warnings.
Does anyone disagree?
Walter
