[ibis-interconn] IBIS Ad Hoc Interconnect July 1 Minutes and July 15 Reminder

From: "Mirmak, Michael" <michael.mirmak@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:28:44 -0600
======================================================================
IBIS INTERCONNECT MODELING AD HOC TASK GROUP MEETING MINUTES AND AGENDA

http://www.eda.org/ibis/adhoc/interconnect/

Mailing list: ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

======================================================================
Next Meeting
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
8 AM US Pacific Time

               Telephone     Bridge   Passcode
              916-356-2663     5      257-2357

(for international and alternate US numbers, contact Michael Mirmak)

LiveMeeting: https://webjoin.intel.com/?passcode=2572357

Agenda:
- Call for patents
- Opens
- Continue review of sparse matrix proposal language

======================================================================

Minutes from July 1:

Attendees:
----------
(* denotes present)
Agilent                    - Radek Biernacki*, John Moore, Ken Wong
Ansoft                     - Denis Soldo
Cadence Design Systems     - Terry Jernberg, Brad Griffin
Cisco Systems              - Mike LaBonte
Green Streak Programs      - Lynne Green
Hewlett-Packard            - Rob Elliott
Intel                      - Michael Mirmak*
Mentor Graphics Corp.      - John Angulo, Vladimir Dmitriev-Zdorov*
Micron Technology          - Randy Wolff
Sigrity                    - Sam Chitwood, Raymond Y. Chen, Tao Su, Brad Brim*
SiSoft                     - Walter Katz*
Teraspeed Consulting Group - Bob Ross*

========================================================================

No patents were declared.

Michael presented his proposal for several keywords to express sparse
matrices.  He also reviewed comments and examples from Walter, showing
alternatives.   

Walter noted that zeroes don't need to occupy physical space in the file.
The zeroes can simply be excluded or not mentioned.  Radek suggested this
might be confusing.  An alternate structure would omit listing any elements
that were zero; Brad agreed, suggesting that a list is all that is required.

Radek added that a list of the non-zero matrices in a single vector would
eliminate the need for extra keywords.  Michael created a quick example showing
[Unique Values] as an example keyword, in the following structure:

[Unique Values]
(5, 230)  : 25 -120
(900, 25) : 75 80
(7, 999)  : 1 -23

where the first pair, in parentheses, corresponds to a row and column location
while the data after the colon correspond to magnitude and angle data points.

Vladimir asked whether each frequency would require a label.  Radek noted
that the data given would correspond to the largest unique matrix in the file.
Brad responded that this might generate too big a matrix.  

Michael added a question regarding whether frequency-distinct values would be
required.  Radek suggested this would be a very special, hypothetical case.
Bob and Vladimir noted that duplication and zeroes would occur in the matrix
because that duplication or zero-valued data was structurally required, not
to describe incidental occurrences.

Radek reiterated that the mapping need only list non-zero elements, where
the header specifies which row, column combinations are non-zero.  Brad
explained an example where, in a 4x4 matrix, duplicated, upper-half and
zeroed data could result in a 16 element matrix only containing 3 data
pairs.  A format that only includes non-zero elements would not provide
this level of compression.  Radek suggested this could be addressed and
took the AR to provide an alternative format with examples.

Walter suggested that most of the alternatives suggested for sparse
matrices were equivalent.  He added that [Transfer Function] might be
a suitable alternative keyword to use. 

Michael asked whether the relationships in a sparse matrix would truly
apply for all frequencies and whether the resulting matrices would
always be the same size.  These issues might make reuse of [Network Data]
difficult.  In addition, this proposal doesn't address swathing.

Vladimir asked whether this makes any difference.  Walter and Bob both
suggested that swathing would be possible using this format.  Bob added
that ignoring zero-valued elements would be preferred, but that any
proposal would still need to address upper/lower matrix mapping and
mixed-mode treatments explicitly.


ARs
Radek: show vector-based alternative to multi-keyword proposals.
------------------------------------------------------------------
      The IBIS Ad Hoc Interconnect Task Group Mailing List

Archives are available at:
                //www.freelists.org/archives/ibis-interconn

TO UNSUBSCRIBE:
        Send a message to "ibis-interconn-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
        with a subject of "unsubscribe"

To administer your subscription status from the web, visit:
                //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-interconn
[ibis-interconn] IBIS Ad Hoc Interconnect July 1 Minutes and July 15 Reminder

Other related posts:
