[ibis-macro] Minutes from the 13 Jul 2010 ibis-atm meeting
- From: "Mike LaBonte (milabont)" <milabont@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:27:35 -0500
Minutes from the 13 Jul 2010 ibis-atm meeting are attached. I see that I
have not been sending the minutes recently, although they are uploaded
to http://www.eda.org/ibis/macromodel_wip/minutes-date.html
I can send them as attachments if someone requests that.
Mike
IBIS Macromodel Task Group
Meeting date: 13 July 2010
Members (asterisk for those attending):
Adge Hawes, IBM
* Ambrish Varma, Cadence Design Systems
Anders Ekholm, Ericsson
* Arpad Muranyi, Mentor Graphics Corp.
Barry Katz, SiSoft
* Bob Ross, Teraspeed Consulting Group
Brad Brim, Sigrity
Brad Griffin, Cadence Design Systems
Chris Herrick, Ansoft
Chris McGrath, Synopsys
Danil Kirsanov, Ansoft
David Banas, Xilinx
Deepak Ramaswany, Ansoft
Donald Telian, consultant
Doug White, Cisco Systems
* Eckhard Lenski, Nokia-Siemens Networks
Eckhard Miersch, Sigrity
Essaid Bensoudane, ST Microelectronics
* Fangyi Rao, Agilent
Ganesh Narayanaswamy, ST Micro
Gang Kang, Sigrity
Hemant Shah, Cadence Design Systems
Ian Dodd, consultant
Jerry Chuang, Xilinx
Joe Abler, IBM
* John Angulo, Mentor Graphics
John Shields, Mentor Graphics
* Ken Willis, Sigrity
Kellee Crisafulli, Celsionix
* Kumar Keshavan, Sigrity
Lance Wang, Cadence Design Systems
Luis Boluna, Cisco Systems
* Michael Mirmak, Intel Corp.
* Mike LaBonte, Cisco Systems
Mike Steinberger, SiSoft
Mustansir Fanaswalla, Xilinx
Patrick O'Halloran, Tiburon Design Automation
Paul Fernando, NCSU
Pavani Jella, TI
* Radek Biernacki, Agilent (EESof)
Randy Wolff, Micron Technology
Ray Komow, Cadence Design Systems
Richard Mellitz, Intel
Richard Ward, Texas Instruments
Samuel Mertens, Ansoft
Sam Chitwood, Sigrity
Sanjeev Gupta, Agilent
Scott McMorrow, Teraspeed Consulting Group
Shangli Wu, Cadence Design Systems
Sid Singh, Extreme Networks
Stephen Scearce, Cisco Systems
Steve Kaufer, Mentor Graphics
Steve Pytel, Ansoft
Syed Huq, Cisco Systems
Syed Sadeghi, ST Micro
Ted Mido, Synopsys
Terry Jernberg, Cadence Design Systems
* Todd Westerhoff, SiSoft
Vladimir Dmitriev-Zdorov, Mentor Graphics
Vikas Gupta, Xilinx
Vuk Borich, Agilent
* Walter Katz, SiSoft
Wenyi Jin, LSI Logic
Zhen Mu, Mentor Graphics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opens:
- Arpad asked participants to find ways to help close the AMI topic
--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:
- No one declared a patent.
-------------
Review of ARs:
- Arpad: Write parameter passing syntax proposal (BIRD draft)
for *-AMS models in IBIS that is consistent with the
parameter passing syntax of the AMI models
- TBD: Propose a parameter passing syntax for the SPICE
- [External ...] also?
- TBD
- Arpad: Review the documentation (annotation) in the macro libraries.
- Deferred until a demand arises or we have nothing else to do
-------------
New Discussion:
Arpad: The latest IBIS-ISS document has been posted:
- Michael M showed the specification
- Michael M: Both marked-up and clean copies are posted
- There is a Statement of Changes
- We need to work on line continuations
- There was a request for string parameters
- Everything is mentioned only once
- This leaves some items scattered throughout
Todd showed a presentation IBIS-AMI Flows:
- Slide 4:
- In 2006/10 we had a time domain flow only in mind
- Kumar: Statistical analysis will be supported if the EQ is in Init
- Todd: Yes
- Slide 5:
- In 2007/10 we added Init_Returns_Impulse and GetWave_Exists
- Slide 6:
- We ran into interpretation conflicts, added Use_Init_Output 2008/05
- With IBIS 5.0 2008/08 we sort of enabled statistical simulation
- Slide 9:
- The potential for split Init/GetWave models made us complicate things
- There are no known models that do this
- Ken: There are really only 2 possible rows in this table
- Walter: You always need Init to initialize GetWave
- Kumar: What is dual and what is split?
- Todd: With split you need both Init/GetWave chained together
- With dual Init is approximate, GetWave is the accurate version
- Ken: Dual will fall into one of the 2 rows anyway
- Slide 10:
- These 9 cases are agreed upon, out of the 16
- Slide 12:
- You always have to process Init somehow
- This flow never changes
- Slide 14:
- The simulator can create "LTI GetWave" when the model has no GetWave
- Slide 15:
- hXEI(t) is not usually needed
- Fangyi: The red box is the main confusion
- Michael M: Struggling with the notation
- Kumar: Also struggling with the notation
- Arpad: We have been using this notation for a while
- Radek: It is misleading, should be TTA
- Slide 16:
- Todd: Walter pointed out that RX pre-optimization requires this
- Fangyi: #2 and #3 are equivalent
- Todd: Yes, in some ways
- Slide 17:
- We are back to needing a spec change
- Arpad: Most people will update their simulators
- Slide 17:
- Todd: We need a way to isolate hREI(t) or to pass in what we have
- Kumar: This is to make optimization less dependent on impulse response?
- Todd: A later slide may help explain
- Slide 18:
- The simulator has to decide: If GetWave does not exist what do I convolve?
- The RX Init-only model still may optimize
- Ambrish: The RX model could recommend to the user whether to use
optimization
- Kumar: The EDA tool could decide that
- The user could do it
- Todd: This is the flow we believe exists today
- Slide 19:
- Forgot to mention a BIRD on this slide
- Will update and send to Mike for posting
- Slide 20:
- Ambrish: If there is both TX GetWave and Init they would use GetWave only
- Todd: This is case 7 on slide 10
- Simulators do this already
- Kumar: Then it is solved
- Ambrish: But it is not in the spec
- Walter: I will send the AMI Flow and Impulse Response Return BIRDs
- We need to get closure
- Suggested amendments could be recommended with BIRD submission
- Fangyi: This is different from Arpad's BIRD?
- Walter: Right
- Ambrish: If we agree there is no new reserved parameter we are done today
- Walter: The open forum should decide that
- Todd: We are trying to develop a simpler way of expressing this
- Arpad: It was 14 against 2, now it is 1 against 8
- The problem case is still the same
- Todd: I'm trying to get it on one sheet
- Arpad: There are 3 ways to solve this issue
- In March we voted to stay away from deconvolution
- Ambrish: We need to rule out the reserved parameter
- We can't do #7
- Walter: This should be presented in writing
- We can discuss it next week
- Todd: LTI GetWave models do exist
- This is a solved problem, through deconvolution
- Don't want to rule out that flow
- Arpad: Three choices:
- Deconvolution
- A new parameter
- Matrix changes
- Walter: Would like to have new BIRD considered first
- Todd: I will change slide 17 to reflect Arpad's proposal
- Also make a change for Radek's comment
- Bob: This group needs to decide before the open forum sees it
AR: Todd send update presentation to Mike for posting
AR: Walter send new BIRD draft to Mike for posting
Next meeting: 20 July 2010 12:00pm PT
--------
IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:
1) Simulator directives
Other related posts:
- » [ibis-macro] Minutes from the 13 Jul 2010 ibis-atm meeting - Mike LaBonte (milabont)
