Minutes from the 27 September ibis-atm meeting are attached.
IBIS Macromodel Task Group
Meeting date: 27 September 2016
Members (asterisk for those attending):
ANSYS: * Dan Dvorscak
* Curtis Clark
Broadcom (Avago): Xingdong Dai
* Bob Miller
Cadence Design Systems: * Ambrish Varma
Brad Brim
Kumar Keshavan
Ken Willis
Cisco: Seungyong (Brian) Baek
eASIC: David Banas
Marc Kowalski
Ericsson: Anders Ekholm
GlobalFoundries: * Steve Parker
IBM * Luis Armenta
Intel: Michael Mirmak
Keysight Technologies: Fangyi Rao
* Radek Biernacki
* Ming Yan
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
Synopsys: Rita Horner
Kevin Li
Teraspeed Consulting Group: Scott McMorrow
Teraspeed Labs: * Bob Ross
TI: Alfred Chong
The meeting was led by Arpad Muranyi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opens:
- None.
-------------
Review of ARs:
- Michael Mirmak to draft a clarification BIRD for AMI Output parameters.
- In progress.
--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:
- None.
-------------------------
Review of Meeting Minutes:
- Arpad: Does anyone have any comments or corrections?
- Curtis: I received one comment from Radek via email. He pointed out that the
minutes missed one point that was made about Format being meaningful,
in fact required, for an Output parameter of Format Table.
- I will add a sentence to capture this point.
- Bob Ross: Motion to approve the minutes with the noted change.
- Walter: Second.
- Arpad: Anyone opposed? [none]
-------------
New Discussion:
- Arpad: Does anyone have updates on anything else on the agenda?
- Fangyi and Randy aren't here to discuss their topics.
- That leaves us with BIRD147.1 or the editorial updates from Radek/Bob Ross.
- I added BIRD147.1 on Bob Ross' request.
Bob Ross and Radek's discussion of Editorial Task Group Issues:
- Bob Ross: We held one more meeting.
- We updated Radek's picture with C_comp now added.
- We also noted some details to be discussed later, including a possible
[GND Reference] keyword and a possible [Pin Reference] keyword in one of
the pictures.
- We looked at some Section 3, proposed item 15, verbiage on ground.
- We reviewed related emails but haven't reached a conclusion.
- Walter sent some questions as to which model is "correct" in a private
email to Radek and me. We briefly discussed it. Radek's response was that
all of them are correct, depending on how the models are extracted.
- Radek: Yes, we haven't finished that discussion.
- In some of Walter's cases the actual reference during the measurement was
indicated. That would clarify some of them.
- Bob: That's the summary.
- We expect more discussion on several topics.
- Possible split rails, PECL and RS-232.
- Our next meeting is to be determined. Perhaps on next Monday.
- Radek: Still quite a bit of work ahead of us to resolve these and finalize the
proposed text.
Bird 147.1: Discussion on "required" parameter verbiage.
- Bob Ross: [sharing BIRD 147.1]
- There's a statement in the text that BCI_Training_UI is not required unless
BCI training is enabled.
- In Table YY1, BCI_Training_UI is shown as conditionally required, and no
default is shown.
- All the other parameters are stated as not-required, and they have defaults.
- For BCI training, aren't some of the others required?
- For example, BCI_State, should that also be "No, Yes for BCI training."?
- Walter: I think we can keep it simple.
- If there's a parameter BCI_Protocol, then all the others are required.
- Bob Ross: Including BCI_GetWave_Block_UI?
- Walter: I think you could make them all required.
- But, BCI_GetWave_Block_UI could be optional with a default of 1000UI.
- All the others should be required if BCI_Protocol exists.
- Bob Miller: I agree.
- Bob Ross: I will resubmit it as 147.2 with the changes.
- Perhaps I'll insert the "No, Yes for BCI training" sentence that is
used for BCI_Training_UI into the other parameter's entries too.
- Radek: Make it more precise, "Yes, when BCI_Protocol is present."
- Bob Miller: That sounds good and can be applied to everything except
BCI_GetWave_Block_UI.
- Radek: Do we need anything in the default column for BCI_ID?
- Bob Ross: It follows the AMI DLL_ID idea. Default is a dummy place holder.
- BCI_ID is kind of a combination of the AMI DLL_ID and DLL_Path.
Review of the weekly agenda's "Pending BIRDs" section:
- Walter: Shouldn't BIRD 180 be removed from the Pending BIRDs and Tabled
topics list? It has been submitted to the Open Forum.
- Arpad: Yes, it was probably an oversight. I'll remove it.
- Walter: In the recent Open Forum meeting, were they asking if ATM formally
recommended approval of any of them?
- Arpad: We usually only make recommendations when a BIRD was discussed here
for technical reasons.
- Walter: Yes, I was just wondering if someone in the Open Forum was asking for
any ATM recommendations.
- Radek: There was discussion [in the Open Forum] about BIRD 128.
- There was a discussion about whether the vote was to reject it and how to
phrase the motion.
- The question was then whether there was a recommendation from ATM on it.
- We can make that recommendation now.
- Radek: Motion that ATM recommend rejection of BIRD 128.2.
- Walter: Second.
- Bob: Have we already made the recommendation with respect to that BIRD?
- Radek: It was tabled here because it was relevant to the original BIRD 147,
which was idle for a long time.
- With the new BIRD 147.1, BIRD 128.2 is now irrelevant.
- I don't recall we ever had a motion to recommend rejecting it.
- Mike L.: I don't recall it either. Even if we had, there would be no harm in
making that recommendation again today.
- Arpad: Any more discussion? [none]
- Anyone opposed to the motion to recommend rejecting BIRD 128.2? [none]
- Arpad: I will write the email to the Open Forum stating that ATM recommends
rejecting BIRD 128.2.
- Walter: I'd like to split off the Pending BIRDs that will eventually be
recommended for rejection once the new Interconnect BIRD goes to the
Open Forum.
- Of the remaining BIRDs, I think we should break them into two categories
according to whether they are in the Open Forum and about to be voted on, or
whether they are still in discussion and no immediate action is expected.
- Discussion: At Walter's suggestion, the group split the "Pending BIRDs" into
three
separate categories:
Pending BIRDs, expected to be rejected:
Pending BIRDs, expected to be accepted (active):
Pending BIRDs in discussion:
Arpad recorded which BIRDs the group assigned to each of the three new
categories.
The new Pending BIRDs categories will appear in subsequent weekly ATM agendas.
- Bob Ross: Motion to adjourn.
- Curtis: Second.
- Arpad: Thank you all for joining.
AR: Curtis to send out revised minutes from the September 20th meeting.
AR: Bob Ross to send out a BIRD 147.2 proposal containing the changes discussed.
AR: Arpad to send an email to the Open Forum with ATM's recommendation on BIRD
128.2.
-------------
Next meeting: 04 October 2016 12:00pm PT
-------------
IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:
1) Simulator directives
