Arpad,
My conclusions were not biased, they are correct.
Fangyi's BIRD will give wrong statistical answers for legacy models if the
Rx2 has DFE or optimization.
Fangyi's BIRD will give wrong statistical answers for legacy Dual models
if the Rx2 has DFE or optimization.
Fangyi's BIRD will give wrong time domain answers for legacy Dual models
if the Rx2 GetWave function requires optimization done in the Rx2.
There are fundamental problems in time domain flow with legacy models if
some, but not all of the models have GetWave_Exists=True, and the EDA
tools uses the AMI_GetWave in models with GetWave_Exists=True.
I agree that we should never expect legacy Init-Only models to be upgraded
to Dual or enhanced Init (Fangyi's BIRD) models. But until Fangyi's BIRD
is approved, and in a spec, and EDA companies support it (how many years
do you think that will take), we should pass BIRD 166, and encourage model
makers to not write Init-Only models.
I think we need to table BIRDs 166 and 190, and work on incorporating BIRD
166 into Fangyi's BIRD to support Init-Only models, and encourage model
makers to not write Init-Only models.
Note, that with Fangyi's BIRD with BIRD 166 included, there will remain
fundamental problems in time domain flow with legacy models if some, but
not all of the models have GetWave_Exists=True, and the EDA tools uses the
AMI_GetWave in models with GetWave_Exists=True.
Walter
Walter Katz
<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx> wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone 303.449-2308
Mobile 303.335-6156
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 3:22 PM
To: IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Open Forum Presentation
IBIS_6.1_BIRD_190_BIRD_Fangyi_BIRD_166.pdf
Walter,
Just so that it is in writing, I would like to repeat my verbal comments I
made in
the Open Forum Teleconference today.
On slide 5 you state that
"Both statistical and time domain simulations are correct with BIRD 166 if
all AMI Models (except Rx2) are Dual Models."
On the same slide you also state that Fangyi's proposal will work
correctly,
but only for new models, and legacy models will continue to give the wrong
answer:
"If AMI_Init functions are not enhanced, the flows are the same as in 6.1,
and therefore continue to give the wrong"
Yet, on the last slide, you conclude that Fangyi's proposal will give the
wrong answer while BIRD166 will give the correct answer. This conclusion
seems to be deliberately biased towards your proposal (BIRD166) by using
the wrong half of the truth (facts) from your earlier statements. Please
be
honest, consistent and objective on your slides and make fair comparisons,
and conclusions. According to slide 5, your proposal will only give the
correct
answers for all situations when we have dual models. Not all legacy
models
are dual models, therefore your proposal will NOT give the correct answer
in all situations.
In this sense both proposals require new models to be written. On slide 5
you also claim that
"A Model Maker can make a Dual Model as easily as modifying the AMI_Init
function to read and write the additional Impulse Responses required by
Fangyi's BIRD."
So why do you use this to justify that your proposal can be made work for
all
cases, while you are dismissing Fangyi's proposal for the reason that it
requires
new models to be written? By the way, in ATM discussions it was made
clear
by several people that there are model makers who will NOT agree to write
dual models. Also, I was told by several model makers that they will NOT
go
back to their old models to re-release them (even when the model had
obvious
bugs or similar issues). Once a device is released, most if not all IC
vendors go
on to work on their new products, and they simply do not go back to do
more
work on their older products.
Please note that I don't dispute facts in your slides (as long as they are
correct
mathematically), but I am outraged by your biased conclusions.
Thanks,
Arpad
==================================================================
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter Katz
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 1:14 PM
To: IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: [ibis-macro] Open Forum Presentation
IBIS_6.1_BIRD_190_BIRD_Fangyi_BIRD_166.pdf
All,
IBIS_6.1_BIRD_190_BIRD_Fangyi_BIRD_166.pdf
Walter
Walter Katz
<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx> wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone 303.449-2308
Mobile 303.335-6156
