Bob,
A few quick reactions:
Regarding: "However, if "model" was used to mean an electrical model, I stated
"electrical model"."
I am not sure I like this. After all, an interconnect model is also an
electrical model, since it carries
electrons (and not petroleum or other substances). :) Wouldn't it be better
to refer to those as
[Model], or "buffer model"?
Regarding: "I changed "legacy" to existing package models", I think this is
still confusing. From the
perspective of the v7.0 spec, the new BIRD189 interconnect modeling syntax will
also be an "existing"
package model in the v7.0 specification. I still think that the best way to
refer to the old package
modeling syntax is either what Walter suggested: "Package models defined in
IBIS 6.1", or what I
suggested based on his suggestion: "Package models defined (supported?) prior
to IBIS 7.0"
Thanks,
Arpad
================================================================================
From: ibis-interconn-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-interconn-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Ross
Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 2:01 PM
To: ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-interconn] BIRD189.5_draft15_v1
All,
I was asked to propose changes to draft14 to make the terminology consistent
and to deal with forward referencing issues. Most of the rules require
detailed knowledge of the contents in a new Section XXX for Interconnect
Modeling. Many of the rail based rules require knowing details given in the
[Pin], [Pin Mapping], [Bus Label] and [Die Supply Pads] keywords.
The changes in draft15_v1 are mostly under the [Interconnect Model Group]
keyword and in some bullet items under [Interconnect Model Set] keyword.
To make the terminology consistent, in most cases I changed "model" to
Interconnect Model. I also expanded Set to Interconnect Model Set and Group to
Interconnect Model Group. However, if "model" was used to mean an electrical
model, I stated "electrical model". I made these interface name changes to be
consistent with Section XXX names and capitalization:
Buffer --> buffer
Pad --> die pad
Pin --> pin
I changed "legacy" to existing package models and listed the choices. These
existing package model formats remain valid and are part of IBIS Version 7.0.
I also noted that if several [Define Package Model]s exit, then the EDA tool
or user needs to select one of the [Define Package Model] keywords.
For rail terminal names, pin_name only is valid for the Pin_Rail Terminal_type
to reference a POWER or GND terminal. The pin_name entry is not used at the
die pad interface. When a pin_name entry it is used at the buffer interface
for *_ref Terminal_Types, the pin_name entry is for an I/O buffer pin_names.
So some of the rules were expanded because PDN electrical paths do not rely on
only on identical "pin_name" entries (as does I/O electrical paths).
Some bullet indentation might be fixed later.
Bob
--
Bob Ross
Teraspeed Labs
www.teraspeedlabs.com<http://www.teraspeedlabs.com/>
bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Direct: 503-246-8048
Office: 971-279-5325
