[ibis-interconn] Minutes, April 10, 2024 IBIS Interconnect Meeting
- From: "Mirmak, Michael" <michael.mirmak@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: 'IBIS-Interconnect' <ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2024 00:18:07 +0000
Please find enclosed the minutes from the April 10, 2024 IBIS Interconnect Task
Group meeting. Comments are welcome.
* MM
============================================================================
IBIS INTERCONNECT TASK GROUP
Mailing list: ibis-interconnect@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
================================================================================
Attendees from April 10, 2024 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio)
ANSYS Curtis Clark, Juliano Mologni
Broadcom James Church
Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak*
Michael Brownell
Keysight Technologies Ming Yan
Marvell Steve Parker
MathWorks Walter Katz*
Micron Technology Justin Butterfield
Siemens EDA Weston Beal, Arpad Muranyi*, Randy Wolff*
ST Microelectronics Aurora Sanna
Synopsys Ted Mido, Edna Moreno
Teraspeed Labs [Bob Ross]
University of Illinois Jose Schutt-Aine
Zuken USA Lance Wang
Michael Mirmak called the meeting to order. No patents were declared.
Michael reviewed the minutes of the April 3 meeting. Arpad Muranyi moved to
approve
the minutes. Walter Katz seconded. The minutes were approved without
objection.
Michale noted that he would not be available for the April 17 meeting.
During the AR review, Michael mentioned his still-open AR regarding checking the
IEEE 370 specification for sampling information.
Arpad noted that he had completed his AR by sending out his new draft of the
port-
mapping proposal. Two more examples have been added, taken from his earlier
presentation. The new examples do not "lead" the document, as mentioned in the
minutes, but are towards the end.
Randy Wolff confirmed the original AR was about the draft TSIRD, not the slide
set. He noted we may need to reorder the examples.
Walter's AR was completed - his port-mapping TSIRD Y draft 1 has been sent to
the reflector. Arpad noted that he had responded via e-mail.
Michael reviewed the priorities list he distributed to the reflector. The
concept
was to show what features should be considered, and according to what
importance.
Arpad asked for clarification on some, and whether the list was for Touchstone
3 as
whole or just the port-mapping concept.
Michael noted that this was general to new features in Touchstone 3.0 beyond the
submitted pole-residue proposal.
Walter replied that he would prefer to see discussion at some point in the
future
of moving to a "Touchstone++" rather than a direct update to Touchstone 2.0 in
3.0.
He additionally suggested not using the priorities document beyond as a
reference.
Michael asked the participants about whether netlisting support was an objective
of the effort. Arpad replied that netlisting was not part of his original
intent.
Randy stated that there is a need to describe locations where the ports of the
Touchstone
file exist; "netlisting" may not be an appropriate term for this.
Walter toured through a list of solution requirements in his document. These
include
generating models for IBIS, EBD and/or IBIS Interconnect through automation.
Walter added, per a requirement, that he personally believes all Touchstone
files should
be single-ended. If differential data is needed, single-ended data can be
converted on
the fly for and diagnostics needed.
Arpad asked what features need to be added. Walter replied that we still need
the
differential port map for the data.
Randy added that this conversion process is all that really happens in a
viewer; the user
tells the viewer what the port usage is.
Michael noted that he had consulted internally regarding Touchstone features,
and only one
response was received, advocating against supporting mixed-mode data in the file
format. Walter added that he had two customers advocating for automated
generation of test probe
locations for test equipment.
Walter provided additional guidance on the proposal. In particular,"Bus_label"
under "Begin Port Map" is a
list of physical locations. Arpad expressed concern this will be easily mixed
up with the Bus_label
for IBIS. Walter agreed, noting these are distinct concepts that will be
resolved later.
Walter noted that subparameters and parameters may get renamed later as well.
There are a few reserved
terms as well. The original proposal used tables; this changes to use one
entry per parameter.
Parameters for the format include:
Type, Physical, Logical, Net, Side, Diff_Port, Reference, Probe, Status
Probe refers to part number of the probe; Status and Probe are for test probe
locations.
Arpad noted that we may need to identify if data is raw or after de-embedding.
We also need rules for which ones are optional with respect to others. Walter
noted that they're
really all optional.
Arpad stated that he is strongly opposed to having no rules on port naming, as
it should not be up
to the model-maker to decide names.
Walter noted that the type and be S or P, for signal or power. The Physical
parameter is a string
for human reading. Michael suggested watching out for cases where interconnect
data may be generated
without regard to application.
Randy replied that there are always hierarchy rules where lower-level names may
not match higher-level
names (logical or net names).
Michael stated that a set of simple cases or examples should be generated as a
"sales pitch" to convince
users of the new features' value. Walter suggested using an "on-ramp" concept,
and already generated an
example: a 4-pin cable from a CPU to a sensor, as in a car. The format also
supports schematic symbol creation.
Examples are also provided for transistor and co-planar waveguides.
The agenda for the next meeting will be to continue Walter's tour, focused on
the IBIS Interconnect Model
definitions.
Arpad moved to adjourn; Randy seconded. The meeting adjourned.
The next meeting will take place on April 3, 2024.
================================================================================
Bin List:
1) [Complete draft Touchstone document separating version 1.0 and 2.0 into
their own chapters] - REMOVED
2) Create structures to encapsulate Touchstone 1.0 data in Touchstone 2+
specifications - TABLED
3) Complete draft Touchstone 2.0 document containing TSIRD3 and TSIRD4
draft (Muranyi) â COMPLETED
4) Complete pole-residue format BIRD draft (Muranyi) - COMPLETED
5) Complete port naming proposal (Katz) - COMPLETED
6) Create alternatives to the Touchstone 1.0 option line before the "R"
character - TABLED
7) Complete ISS-IRD 1 Draft - Enable Cascading of S-parameters Through
W-element (Mirmak) - TABLED
8) Complete/revise Touchstone 3.0 draft outline (Mirmak) â dependent on
several items above
Tabled ARs:
- Arpad to give an example of the physical connectivity needed for EMD
automation.
Other related posts: