[ibis-macro] Minutes from the 18 mar 2008 ibis-atm meeting
- From: "Mike LaBonte (milabont)" <milabont@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:19:40 -0400
Minutes from the 18 mar 2008 ibis-atm meeting are attached.
Mike
IBIS Macromodel Task Group
Meeting date: 18 Mar 2008
Members (asterisk for those attending):
Ambrish Varma, Cadence Design Systems
* Arpad Muranyi, Mentor Graphics Corp.
Barry Katz, SiSoft
* Bob Ross, Teraspeed Consulting Group
Brad Griffin, Cadence Design Systems
* David Banas, Xilinx
Donald Telian, consultant
Doug White, Cisco Systems
Essaid Bensoudane, ST Microelectronics
Ganesh Narayanaswamy, ST Micro
* Hemant Shah, Cadence Design Systems
Ian Dodd
Joe Abler, IBM
* John Angulo, Mentor Graphics
John Shields, Mentor Graphics
Ken Willis, Cadence Design Systems
Kumar, Cadence Design Systems
Lance Wang, Cadence Design Systems
Luis Boluna, Cisco
* Michael Mirmak, Intel Corp.
* Mike LaBonte, Cisco Systems
Mike Steinberger, SiSoft
* Mustansir Fanaswalla, Xilinx
Patrick O'Halloran, Tiburon Design Automation
Paul Fernando, NCSU
* Radek Biernacki, Agilent (EESof)
* Randy Wolff, Micron Technology
Ray Comeau, Cadence Design Systems
Richard Mellitz, Intel
Richard Ward, Texas Instruments
* Sam Chitwood, Sigrity
Sanjeev Gupta, Agilent
Shangli Wu, Cadence
* Sid Singh, Extreme Networks
Stephen Scearce, Cisco Systems
Steve Pytel, Ansoft
Syed Huq, Cisco Systems
Syed Sadeghi, ST Micro
* Terry Jernberg, Cadence Design Systems
* Todd Westerhoff, SiSoft
Vikas Gupta, Xilinx
Vuk Borich, Agilent
* Walter Katz, SiSoft
--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:
- No one declared a patent.
-----
Opens:
Michael M: The draft IBIS 5.0 specification has been posted for review.
-------------
Review of ARs:
- John create document to demonstrate example of extending ICM
- TBD, need more time
- Still fuzzy on appropriate way to connect power and ground ports.
- Arpad send EMD presentation to Mike L for posting
- Done
- David Banas report Xilinx position on LTI assumption for SerDes
- Clarification: are buffer non-linearities small enough so that AMI
models are OK?
- Walter: nothing is linear and everything is linear (to 1st order)
- Whether the LTI assumption is valid depends on engineering judgement.
- Mustansir: we will have to match with spice once we have models.
- AMI BIRD authors meet to prove AMI BIRD can handle Mellitz cases
- Todd: we need real part data
- We decided to leave this AR on the list.
- Walter coordinate completion of true diff BIRD draft
- In progress
- Michael M. draft Eye keywords for true diff BIRD
- In progress
- Randy draft derating keywords for true diff BIRD
- Randy and Walter need to meet on this
- The Tvac keyword is figured out
- Still in "off-line" phase
- 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
- 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:
Advanced connectivity approach: short term or long term solution?
- Arpad:
- John showed us a more flexible solution that may take longer to implement.
- Michael M. proposed something that can be done quickly
- Some people use HSPICE circuits for all connectivity
- Arpad: We may be stretched thin if we try to do both
- David: Doesn't PKG have coupling?
- Michael M: IBIS gives 4 choices:
- lumped across 3 corners [Package]
- [Pin] RLC
- [Define Package Model]
- distributed single line, DC R (cascading)
- matrix includes coupling
- We can't have both
- We want to have via and ball as separate sections
- Sam: Proprietary solutions today are essentially SPICE based
- We can treat IBIS as die only, and all PKG stuff is external
- Arpad: we may miss 5.0; do we need a spec change?
- Michael M: 5.1 is supposed to be a cleanup with no major features
- This will take a lengthy BIRD
- Touches both IBIS and ICM
- Still not sure about connections
- Do we need an integrated parser for both?
- Michael M: Not sure about the level of support for this.
- In this case it may be better to wait for the long term solution
- Arpad: is this too big a change for 5.1?
- Michael M: We have done it before
- Arpad: tool vendors can provide hookup facilities on their own
- Summary:
- It's too late for something new to go into IBIS 5.0
- Tools will have to hook ICM to IBIS on their own
- John: Some vendor might implement something that then becomes 5.1
- It looks easy at first glance
John shared circuit_call_to_model.txt
- [Circuit Call] si needed to bring in pad nodes beyond 1 pin and 1 pad
- But it can only instantiate a [Model]
- Walter: There should be a model for each piece of silicon
- Mixing that into an IBIS file will cause problems
- There must be an independent scheme
- ICM can't daisy chain disparate elements
- Michael M: Conceptually there can be multiple [Define Package Model]s
- Tools can offer a choice as with [Model Selector] or [Component]
- Arpad: Does the [Component] effectively include the package?
- John: Can't have an IBIS file with just a package
- Walter: We can have a stub [Component]
- Would be need to use same [Component] with many packages
- Mike L: [Pin] names refer to external pin names
- Walter's proposal handles that mapping
- Walter: Crosstalk can be complicated when component models have interconnect
Arpad: so do we go for the short term or long term solution?
- Randy: We need a long term solution
- Radek: agree
- Bob: agree, short term solutions can be pursued by others
- We will focus on Walter's proposal
- This will be reported to the open forum
- No action required there
- Randy will continue work on the measurement BIRD
- he may have something in 1 or 2 meetings
Next meeting: 25 Mar 2007 12:00pm PT
-----------
Other related posts:
- » [ibis-macro] Minutes from the 18 mar 2008 ibis-atm meeting
