[ibis-macro] Re: wording for step 9 in BIRD155.1
- From: <fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>, <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 11:51:12 -0600
Thanks for all your inputs. I updated the BIRD accordingly, and Mike L posted
the new doc (draft 4) at the ATM website.
Fangyi
From: Muranyi, Arpad [mailto:Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 8:45 AM
To: Mike LaBonte; RAO,FANGYI (A-USA,ex1)
Cc: ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx; wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx; bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; BIERNACKI,RADEK
(A-Sonoma,ex1)
Subject: RE: wording for step 9 in BIRD155.1
Fangyi,
Here are my comments on BIRD 155 draft 3 (as posted on the ATM website):
1) In the "ANALYSIS PATH/DATA THAT LED TO SPECIFICATION" there is a
sentence which says: "...therefore there is no need to introduce "simulation
reserved parameters"."
but then a few lines below that I read this: "A new API is added to AMI and a
new reserved parameter is introduced" which contradict each other. This needs
to
be fixed...
2) I also wonder about the wording "A new API is added". Are we really adding
an API or just two new functions to the existing API?
3) I don't know if we can do much about this, but the naming of the two
"close" function bothers me. The existing "AMI_close" function's name
implies that it closes anything that is AMI related. But in reality it
only applies to the Init and GetWave functions. The new close function
applies to the resolve function only, but we call it "AMI_Resolve_Close".
To be more precise, we should rename the existing close function to be
AMI_Init_GetWave_Close, or have a separate close function for each function,
like AMI_Init_Close and AMI_GetWAve_Close. But I know we can't change
the existing functions or their names like that. Another option would be
to close the resolve function by our existing "all purpose" AMI_Close
function. We can actually call the existing AMI_Close function after the
AMI_Resolve function and then again at the end of the last AMI_GetWave
call, we would just pass a different pointer into the two different calls...
4) Under the "Resolve_Exists" parameter description, I would not use
"Default", I would use "Value" instead. "Default" is misleading and
really inappropriate.
5) In the Usage Rules please change "If omitted, the default if False" to
something
else, such as "If omitted, the EDA tool should behave as if this parameter was
set to False".
We need to be clear on what default we are talking about...
6) Why are there so many blank lines in the "Other Notes" section after the
first sentence? I think they should be removed...
7) Problem with "Default" in Model_Name
8) Misleading sentence:
" The EDA tool must pass the name of the IBIS [Model] keyword that is being
used in the input
parameter strings to AMI_Resolve and AMI_Init functions as the value of this
parameter."
The words "being used in the input parameter strings" can be interpreted the
wrong way...
9) Step 3 says that "If Resolve_Exists is False, go to step 9", but step 9 talks
about "...and their values used in the simulation are set by the call to
AMI_Resolve before
the call to AMI_Init." It doesn't make sense to talk about what AMI_Resolve
does if we jump to step 9 when it doesn't exist...
10) Step 4 says what happens when "Resolve_Exists is True", yet in reality
these things will need to be done whether it is true or not.
11) Shouldn't the name of the exists parameter be "AMI_Resolve_Exists",
since the function is called "AMI_Resolve"?
12) Step 8 says "if their values are returned by DLL in AMI_parameters_out."
This
should be worded more precisely because these return values should be
coming from AMI_Resolve, and none of the other ones...
I still feel that we should mention that if dependent parameters are
needed by the other AMI functions (Init or GetWave) the resolve
function can be called by them too or they can duplicate the code
in the resolve function to find the dependent results. If we don't
mention this, it gives the impression to the reader that we either
prohibit this or forgot to address it...
13) I am confused about the examples. There are five examples listed
and then we have the "Examples:" entry again with one example. What is
going on here?
14) The last sentence "Tables 17-19 will be modified..." should be placed
earlier somewhere, because it is not part of the example.
15) Regarding the wording of that sentence in the email below, I think
we should clean things up as noted above and work it in while we do that
along the lines of Mike L.'s suggestions.
Thanks,
Arpad
=========================================================================
From: Mike LaBonte [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 9:59 AM
To: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Muranyi, Arpad; ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>;
bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: wording for step 9 in BIRD155.1
I like this wording, but I think it needs to be shuffled around a bit. There
are three parts to it:
1. Dependent parameters are of Usage Dep
2. their values used in the simulation are set by the call to AMI_Resolve
before the call to AMI_Init
3. Values of parameters of Usage InOut returned by the AMI_Init and
AMI_GetWave functions shall not affect the dependent parameter values used in
the simulation
Part 1 is redundant, that is stated above as "Dependent parameters be of Usage
Type Dep" (side note: we agreed to drop the word Type there). We should not
need to repeat it.
As far as part 2 is concerned, since step 3 says "If Resolve_Exists is False go
to step 9" it would be better not to discuss part 2 or anything related to
AMI_Resolve in step 9. It needs to be covered either somewhere between steps 3
and 9, or maybe add it to the "Dependent parameters be of Usage Type Dep"
sentence above the list of steps.
Part 3 should be either a note after the list of steps, or integrated into step
6.
Mike
On 7/25/2013 6:33 PM, fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi, All;
We talked about adding sentence "The EDA tool may call AMI_Resolve only once,
before AMI_Init is called." to step 9 of the simulation flow at last ATM. Radek
and I think the follow is a better wording.
"Dependent parameters are of Usage Dep, and their values used in the simulation
are set by the call to AMI_Resolve before the call to AMI_Init. Values of
parameters of Usage InOut returned by the AMI_Init and AMI_GetWave functions
shall not affect the dependent parameter values used in the simulation."
What do you think?
Thanks,
Fangyi
Other related posts:
- » [ibis-macro] Re: wording for step 9 in BIRD155.1 - fangyi_rao
