Minutes from the 14 Apr 2015 ibis-atm meeting are attached.
Mike
IBIS Macromodel Task Group
Meeting date: 14 April 2015
Members (asterisk for those attending):
ANSYS: * Dan Dvorscak
* Curtis Clark
Avago (LSI) Xingdong Dai
Cadence Design Systems: * Ambrish Varma
Brad Brim
Kumar Keshavan
Ken Willis
eASIC * David Banas
Ericsson: Anders Ekholm
IBM Steve Parker
Intel: * Michael Mirmak
Keysight Technologies: * Fangyi Rao
* Radek Biernacki
* Nicholas Tzou
Maxim Integrated Products: Hassan Rafat
Mentor Graphics: * John Angulo
* Arpad Muranyi
Micron Technology: * Randy Wolff
Justin Butterfield
QLogic Corp. James Zhou
Andy Joy
eASIC Marc Kowalski
SiSoft: * Walter Katz
* Todd Westerhoff
* Mike LaBonte
Synopsys Rita Horner
Teraspeed Consulting Group: Scott McMorrow
Teraspeed Labs: * Bob Ross
(Note: Agilent has changed to Keysight)
The meeting was led by Arpad Muranyi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opens:
- Arpad: We are hoping for a vote on package model updates.
--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:
- None
-------------
Review of ARs:
- Walter send updated PAM4 BIRD to Mike for posting.
- Done
- Randy send updated C_comp BIRD to Mike for posting.
- Done
- Michael M update AMI Directionality BIRD
- No update
- Arpad to review IBIS specification for min max issues.
- In progress.
-------------
New Discussion:
BIRD 175:
- Arpad showed the updated BIRD 175.
- Arpad: The question is what to do for pins not in [Pin Numbers] and not in
[Merged Pins]
- The rule says it should be unconnected if part of a bus.
- Pin 7 here will be disconnected and simulation will fail.
- It could be RLC modeled, but that would be incorrect.
- We could disallow the situation.
- All pins of a [Pin Mapping] bus would have to be in [Pin Numbers] or
[Merged Pins].
- Radek: It is still conditioned on existence of [Merged Pins].
- With no [Merged Pins] that is another case.
- Mike L: Is "and/or" valid here?
- Each pin in [Merged Pins] has to be in [Pin Numbers].
- Arpad: The pin after the [Merged Pins] keyword is in [Pin Numbers]
- The others are not.
- Radek: Agree.
- Arpad: Radek suggested changes to the red text on page 4.
- Radek: An open circuit conflicts with the [Merged Pins] section.
- Arpad: The open is between pin and pad, but that does not make it totally
open.
- Radek: It needs to be stated more precisely.
- The RLC must no be used for that pin and pad.
- Randy: Was that in an email?
- Arpad emailed the file to Randy.
- Arpad pointed out suggested text from Radek.
- Arpad: The reader does not know about the [Merged Pins] keyword at this point.
- Radek: We should not use the term "open circuit".
- Randy: Either text is OK.
- Bob: This paragraph can apply to connections without [Merged Pins].
- Randy: We could say it creates a no-connection between pin and pad.
- Arpad: We call it a no-connect but the [Merged Pins] creates a connection
later.
- Radek: In the para starting with "Each pin name" (page 5).
- "may not be present" should be "shall not be present".
- Bob: Is this the draft with the table in it?
- Arpad: We can discuss that later.
- Radek: If [Pin Mapping] is present but not [Merged Pins] is this allowed?
- Arpad: The first part of the red paragraph covers that.
- Radek: The second sentence excludes the [Pin Mapping] pins.
- Arpad: The "However" is the exception to the first part.
- Radek: RLC is limited to pins not under [Pin Numbers] and not under [Pin
Mapping].
- Arpad: Disagree.
- Randy: Bob's table may help.
- Arpad: That may be in the BIRD but it will not be in the specification.
- Bob: The first sentence does not say "Without [Pin Mapping]".
- Arpad: We need to take this offline.
- Arpad showed a table of rules drafted by Bob.
- Arpad: The background section of the BIRD has been updated to include this.
- Bob: The rules for signal pins are unchanged.
- Up to 6.0 we never say the power/GND pins are treated differently.
- Circuit call is illegal with [Pin Mapping].
- For Power/GND pins many cases are the same.
- Where [Pin Mapping] and [Pin Numbers] exist but not [Merged Pins] the rule
changes.
- With [Merged Pins] we always use model data from [Pin Numbers]
- This is where the "all bus pins must be accounted for" rule comes in.
- A bus might connect to no [Pin Numbers] at all and there we use RLC.
- Radek: In the third case why is [Merged Pins] illegal?
- Bob: [Merged Pins] requires [Pin Numbers].
- Radek: This is a usefulness issue.
- The second sentence under "However" should have the statement about [Merged
Pins].
- Arpad: Disagree, they are unrelated.
- Bob: Agree with Arpad.
- The first part is a general rule, [Merged Pins] has not come up yet.
- Arpad: There should be no rule duplication.
- Radek: It first excludes the rule then it allows it.
- Bob: Should the table be in the specification?
- Arpad: Is this ready for submission to the Open Forum for a vote?
- Bob: We do not have a complete draft ready yet.
- Mike L: Could these issues be settled in the editorial committee?
- Radek: We can work on it this week and have it ready next week.
AR: Arpad, Randy and Radek prepare BIRD 175 draft ready for Open Forum.
PAM4 BIRD:
- Walter: I suggested a paragraph to explain Bit Time, etc.
- I will find the places in IBIS that are affected.
- Draft 15 will address this.
AR: Walter find all places in IBIS specification affected by PAM4 BIRD.
Directionality BIRD:
- No update.
C_comp BIRD:
- Randy: The C_comp BIRD is open for comments.
Back-channel BIRD:
- Walter: No progress on back-channel.
-------------
Next meeting: 21 Apr 2015 12:00pm PT
-------------
IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:
1) Simulator directives