Arpad,
This is excellent!!! Thank you.
Walter
Walter Katz
<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx> wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone 303.449-2308
Mobile 303.335-6156
From: ibis-interconn-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-interconn-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 8:07 PM
To: 'IBIS-Interconnect (ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)'
<ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-interconn] Re: Aggressor_Only proposed text changes
Proposed text with a few tweaks:
Multi-line models may describe only a subset of a coupled structure (e.g.,
a 64-line bus may be described by a four-line model). As a result, while
the interconnects at the edges of the model may induce crosstalk onto
other interconnects nearby, being on the edge of the model, they may not
themselves experience the full crosstalk impact that the corresponding
interconnect experiences in the real, full structure. The optional
Aggressor_Only column entry is allowed on all terminal locations for I/O
terminals to indicate such incomplete coupling. Terminals that include the
Aggressor_Only entry may not be suitable to be simulated as victims, as
they do not experience the full coupling present in the real physical
structure. If an I/O terminal is not identified as Aggressor_Only, then
the interconnect to that I/O terminal includes coupling to all
interconnections deemed necessary for coupled signal analysis. If a
particular terminal is identified as Aggressor_Only, then the entire path
of the associated pin_name is to be considered Aggressor_Only.
Take it or leave it or modify it.
Thanks,
Arpad
===================================
From: ibis-interconn-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-interconn-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-interconn-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mirmak, Michael
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 6:23 PM
To: 'IBIS-Interconnect (ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> )' <ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: [ibis-interconn] Aggressor_Only proposed text changes
As discussed in this week's Interconnect Task Group meeting, the
Aggressor_Only definition text needs some adjustment to more clearly and
correctly express the concept. Enclosed please find the text edited
during the meeting and proposed text for the next draft of the BIRD.
Comments and suggestions are welcome.
* MM
Previous text (from this week's meeting):
Aggressor_Only
The optional Aggressor_Only column is allowed on all terminal locations
for I/O terminals to indicate incomplete coupling. Terminals that include
the Aggressor_Only entry may not document full coupling to
interconnections that are included in this interconnect model. If an I/O
terminal is not an Aggressor_Only, then the interconnect to that I/O
terminal will include coupling to all aggressor interconnections deemed
necessary for coupled signal analysis. If a particular terminal is
Aggressor_Only, then the entire path of the associated pin_name is to be
considered Aggressor_Only.
Proposed text:
Multi-line models may describe only a portion of a coupled structure
(e.g., a four-line model may be used to represent a portion of a 64-line
bus). As a result, the interconnects at the edges of the model may induce
crosstalk onto nearby interconnects in the model but may not themselves
experience the full crosstalk impact of the same interconnect in the real,
full structure. The optional Aggressor_Only column entry is allowed on
all terminal locations for I/O terminals to indicate incomplete coupling.
Terminals that include the Aggressor_Only entry may not experience full
coupling to interconnections that are included in this interconnect model.
If an I/O terminal is not identified as Aggressor_Only, then the
interconnect to that I/O terminal includes coupling to all
interconnections deemed necessary for coupled signal analysis. If a
particular terminal is identified as Aggressor_Only, then the entire path
of the associated pin_name is to be considered Aggressor_Only.
