[ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
- From: Ambrish Varma <ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'Fangyi Rao'" <fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 06:17:21 -0700
Hi Fangyi,
Sorry about that - You are correct. It was a result of a slight oversight on my
part.
I have fixed the wordings to correctly represent the scenario now.
Please let me know if there are any issues with this version.
Thanks,
Ambrish.
Ambrish Varma | Member of Consulting Staff
P: 978.262.6431 www.cadence.com
-----Original Message-----
From: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 7:46 PM
To: Ambrish Varma; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
Hi, Ambrish;
Can you explain to me how the double-counting of channel impulse response is
fixed? Take the case Tx_GetWave_Exists=False and Rx_GetWave_Exists=False.
Step 1 output: h_AC
Step 3 output: h_TE*h_AC*h_RE
Step 4 output: p(t) (bit stream)
Step 5b output: h_AC*p(t)
(new sentence "if Rx GetWave_Exists is also False, the output of Step 4 is
convolved with the output of Step 1" you add to 5b.)
Step 6b: h_AC*p(t) * h_TE*h_AC*h_RE
("If the Rx GetWave_Exists is False, the output of Step 5 is convolved with the
output of Step 3")
So h_AC is counted twice. Did I miss something?
Thanks,
Fangyi
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ambrish Varma
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 2:41 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
Fangyi,
Thanks for pointing out the double counting in step 6 in section 3.2 during the
call. I have added a sentence in step 5b that should fix the issue. Please let
me know if it addresses the issue you have raised.
Thanks,
Ambrish.
Ambrish Varma | Member of Consulting Staff
P: 978.262.6431 www.cadence.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 10:30 AM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
Hello everyone,
In the attached version of the flow BIRD draft I added a few items at the end
to remove all mention of Use_Init_Output from the spec, and added Walter's note
below to the "Analysis path/data/that led to specification" section. Please
review this draft and lets vote tomorrow.
Thanks,
Arpad
===============================================================
________________________________
From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 1:32 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; IBIS-ATM
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
Arpad,
I think in the case of Use_Init_Output, we should remove all references
to Use_Init_Output in the body of the final 5.1 Version, and add
something like the following in a new IBIS Deprecation Section:
The parameter Use_Init_Output was an optional reserved parameter in IBIS
5.0. The use of Use_Init_Output has been deprecated in IBIS 5.1, and EDA
tools shall ignore the value of Use_Init_Output, and assume that models
operate according to the flows as described in IBIS 5.1. In IBIS 5.0,
Use_Init_Output only had application to time domain flows in conjunction
with dual models (Init_Returns_Impulse=True, and GetWave_Exists=True).
Existing dual models that assumed the logic of Use_init_Ouput=True as
specified in IBIS 5.0 may not work properly in the flows documented in
IBIS 5.1.
Walter
Walter Katz
303.449-2308
Mobile 303.883-2120
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
www.sisoft.com
Other related posts:
