[ibis-macro] Minutes from the 25 Feb 2014 ibis-atm meeting
- From: Mike LaBonte <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:47:25 -0500
Minutes from the 25 Feb 2014 ibis-atm meeting are attached.
Mike
IBIS Macromodel Task Group
Meeting date: 25 February 2014
Members (asterisk for those attending):
Agilent: Fangyi Rao
* Radek Biernacki
Altera: David Banas
ANSYS: * Dan Dvorscak
* Curtis Clark
Luis Armenta
Cadence Design Systems: * Ambrish Varma
* Brad Brim
* Kumar Keshavan
Ken Willis
Ericsson: Anders Ekholm
Intel: * Michael Mirmak
Maxim Integrated Products: Hassan Rafat
Mentor Graphics: * John Angulo
* Arpad Muranyi
Micron Technology: * Randy Wolff
Justin Butterfield
QLogic Corp. James Zhou
Andy Joy
SiSoft: * Walter Katz
Todd Westerhoff
* Mike LaBonte
Teraspeed Consulting Group: Scott McMorrow
* Bob Ross
The meeting was led by Arpad Muranyi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opens:
- Arpad: I will travel next week, unable to meet.
- Mike: I most likely can't attend either.
- Arpad will try to find someone else to chair.
--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:
- No one declared a patent.
- Arpad: Do we still have to ask this under SAE rules?
- Michael M: Yes we do.
-------------
Review of ARs:
- Arpad duplicate Walter's example using BIRDs 163-165.
- Done, but it is a work in progress.
- Walter advised reviewing it in ad-hoc group meetings, not here.
- Walter update new package model example with corrections and parameterized
length.
- Done.
Parser bugs 150 and 151:
- Walter: bug 151 is about negative matrix values.
- Bob: The negative matrix value one would be an enhancement.
- Walter motioned to move these items into the tabled section.
- Michael M seconded.
- No one objected.
Arpad showed back-channel BIRD 147 draft 7
- Ambrish: Arpad and I exchanged emails last week.
- We made some changes, which are highlighted.
- A bit sequence example was moved to after the explanation of "random".
- Rules for LFSR seed bits were clarified.
- The source of the BCI string was clarified.
- The EDA tool facilitates communication between TX and RX.
- Various comments have been added.
- Clarification was added for Training_Done.
- Taps in examples were changed to Type Tap so names can have "-".
- Walter:
- On page 2 I object to adding a new Bits type.
- It only changes what the delimiter character is.
- Random bit patterns will not work, the pattern needs to be well defined.
- On page 7 it says the EDA tool can initiate Training_Done.
- The tool can only modify the string.
- On page 8 Type Tap is actually a float.
- Ambrish: This is in Protocol_Specific, that would not apply.
- Arpad: Would each number require ".0"?
- Walter: It should use List instead of Range if they are really integers.
- On page 11 the use model is not clear. The user might ask:
- What is the optimum solution?
- Will this RX find the solution?
- Ambrish: Are there ways to optimize without backchannel?
- Walter: Yes there are.
- The standard for KR says the RX "shall find a solution".
- That becomes the designers responsibility.
- The user only wants to know what the BER will be.
- It can be assumed a solution can be found.
- Who will use the backchannel in simulations?
- Only designers may want it, not users.
- Kumar: That assumes there is only a single solution
- In reality multiple solutions are possible
- Performance will depend on which is found.
- Walter: True, but the standard says it will find a solution better than some
value.
- Kumar: It is important to explore the outcomes.
- Bob:
- On page 1 the BIRD number should be added, and modified date.
- On page 2 is Training a DLL input?
- Ambrish: Yes.
- Bob:
- On page 4 maybe "None" could be "Off".
- On page 7 what does Default False mean for Training_Done?
- Ambrish: Training is by default not done until it is True.
- Mike L: Format List is to be used by users to choose values.
- Kumar: Because Type is Boolean the Value can only be True or False.
- Ambrish changed it to Format Value.
- Mike: Format Value can not have a Default.
- Bob: I think Default now has to have "[illegal]".
AR: Bob work with Ambrish on BIRD 147 editorial work.
Package Modeling:
- Walter showed an outline of package model status items.
- Walter: Are there other scenarios we need examples for?
- John had mentioned mixing legacy and new model styles.
- We need to decide which tradeoffs to adopt regarding what the industry
needs.
- Brad: Two issues here:
- How to take a submodel and make a more complete model.
- What will we do for people who have a full model today?
- Walter: Today's proposal covers that.
- Brad: The time to define swathing might hold up the simple format.
- Walter showed a syntax example.
- Walter: Vendors say the coupled models are for pre-layout only.
- For post-layout they supply an s4p, no ability to generate a full matrix.
- There is no intention to use smaller models to create larger.
- An s12p would be for pre-layout.
- They might say to use 4 ports of the s12p for post-layout.
- Or they might supply the s4p.
- There can be cascading of models.
- Brad: Many people analyze multiple channels.
- They need full package models.
- Can they build that from 12 port models?
- Walter: No.
- Arpad: You are saying post-layout with swathing would not have coupling?
- Walter: Coupling is only available with explicit pins, not with swathing.
- Arpad: Length can be parameterized?
- Walter: Yes, I have seen a 10 port example of that.
- It is a half-swathing pre-layout example.
- Walter: We need to make sure we have cover all usage scenarios.
AR: Walter send package issues outline and example to email list.
-------------
New Discussion:
-------------
Next meeting: 04 March 2014 12:00pm PT
-------------
IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:
1) Simulator directives
Other related posts:
- » [ibis-macro] Minutes from the 25 Feb 2014 ibis-atm meeting - Mike LaBonte
