Arpad,
I believe the consensus of IBIS-ATM is:
" a way to communicate to the user that the model includes non-standard
features and will only work in certain simulators, the end user will know
what to expect from the model and how to use the model successfully."
I have three comments on your proposal.
1. I would prefer a more a positive parameter name such as
AdvancedParams or NonStandardParams instead of VendorSpecificParams.
2. The parameter should be of Type Table to be consistent with the
way we have done similar Reserved Parameters (e.g. Supporting_Files)
3. It gives the EDA tool the ability to either
a. Ignore it.
i. The
User needs to be informed enough to read the .ami file, or look at the
IBIS Check report to find out if this model is using Advanced or Non
Standard parameters.
b. Inform the user that the model is advanced and this tool does not
use the advanced features.
c. Inform the user that the model is advanced, and this tool does
use the advanced features as described in ... .
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:55 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Out_InOut_Info_BIRD draft_11
Hello Everyone,
Here is draft_11 of the Out_InOut_Info_BIRD we have been discussing in
recent meetings. This is a somewhat crude draft and I am open to
suggestions on what to add, take away or change. Please take a few
minutes to read if before the ATM meeting so we could have a productive
discussion on it.
I will also ask Mike L. to post this on the ATM website so it would be
archived and be available to everyone in case there are problems with the
attachment on this email reflector.
Thanks,
Arpad
=====================================================================
