Ambrish,
Thanks for pointing this problem out. I am sure we will address
these issues as our discussions on AMI improvements continue.
I would like to ask you a couple of questions about the usage of
"default".
1) Considering your statement that "we have used the word Default
to specify the value for that model/simulation", what would you say
is the difference between the typical value of a range and the default?
2) Your statement "we have used the word Default to specify the
value for that model/simulation" opens up the question I asked a
several weeks ago about parameter strings. Remember, my impression
about the specification was that the entire .ami file was supposed
to be passed into the DLL's parameter string and consequently
the DLL was supposed to parse it and extract the values from it.
Your statement that "we have used the word Default to specify the
value for that model/simulation" seems to underline that thinking,
because it seems that you are saying that the DLL will extract the
default value and simulate using that. In this case, the EDA tool
could modify the original .ami file's default values before passing
it to the DLL according to the user's wishes for each specific
simulation.
On the other hand, if this was not the intent, in other words, if
the DLL is supposed to get only a subset of the .ami file in the
parameter string, I am still looking for a description in the AMI
specification that explains how to formulate that subset.
Thanks,
Arpad
======================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Ambrish Varma [mailto:ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 3:03 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Cc: Muranyi, Arpad
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: IBIS AMI Specification Questions/Proposal
Hi All,
I feel there is some real confusion about "Values" and "Default".
Defaults, generally mean that if there is no value provided, the tool
will use the default value. In the spec, we have used the word Default
to specify the value for that model/simulation (particularly in the
reserved parameters section).
There is also confusion because we have defined the format for declaring
the parameters at 2 places for the reserved parameters (one with format,
one without).
Please refer to the attached document to see the changes that I am
proposing to the parameter section.
Thanks,
-Ambrish.
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 6:51 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: IBIS AMI Specification Questions/Proposal
Bob,
Thanks for posting this summary of the problem.
I read trough the attached file and I am not sure what
the reasons are for these inconsistencies. In order to
make the right decisions, I feel we need to ask those
who wrote these portions of the AMI spec to find out
what was their intent. Authors, please speak up...
Thanks,
Arpad
========================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Ross
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:11 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] IBIS AMI Specification Questions/Proposal
All:
This is being sent out per the issue raised at the Aug. 18
meeting concerning parser interpretation of the AMI Spec.
The ibischk5 parser with the -ami flag will check the
syntax of the <file name>.ami file. The attached document
shows several forms for <parameter_name> that are in the
specification. Some of the forms imply a restricted set of
parameters, but then this is contradicted by the example
at the end.
This implies that some parameters are really optional and
not excluded according to the syntaxes given.
The propposal is simply to make all parameters at least
optional, and some required according to a draft Table 4
that is NOT in the specification.
Do the choices in Table 4 look reasonable?
Bob
