======================================================================
IBIS INTERCONNECT TASK GROUP
http://www.eda.org/ibis/interconnect_wip/
Mailing list:
ibis-interconnect@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-interconnect@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives at //www.freelists.org/archive/ibis-interconn/
======================================================================
Attendees from June 3 Meeting
ANSYS Curtis
Clark*
Cadence Design Systems Bradley Brim
Cisco
David Siadat
Intel Corp. Michael
Mirmak*
Keysight Technologies Radek Biernacki*
Mentor Graphics Arpad Muranyi*
Micron Technology Justin Butterfield,
Randy Wolff
Signal Integrity Software Walter Katz*
Teraspeed Labs Bob Ross*
University of Aveiro in Portugal Wael Dghais
No patents were declared.
Michael Mirmak noted, as part of Opens, that he understood the earlier GND
discussions would be moved to the IBIS-ATM meetings. Radek Biernacki added
that A_gnd would be part of the available nodes in the interconnect proposal
under discussion in the Interconnect Task Group.
Bob Ross noted that the A_gnd node was not going to be recommended, but would
not be prohibited. Michael replied that an explicit treatment of A_gnd should
be included in Draft 20. Arpad suggested dealing with GND and referencing more
broadly after discussions on the Interconnect proposal are closed.
The team reviewed the existing Draft 19; some of the background material of the
BIRD may be moved into the main body of the document. Much of the team
discussion will be embedded as comments in the next released Draft.
Radek asked whether Circuit Call is allowed to describe packages. Arpad
replied not, that only on-die interconnect is part of Circuit Call. Bob added
that one can theoretically zero out the package model and put the relevant
information in the Circuit Call block.
The team agreed that [Define Package Model] is permitted to co-exist with this
proposal, but cannot overlap descriptions of Pins, Die Pads, or Terminals; [Pin
Mapping] relationships are less clear, but should not overlap the same Pins,
etc. either. Arpad asked whether [External Circuit] can coexist in the same
way. Michael suggested this was true, so long as [Node Declarations] does not
have to be complete. Arpad agreed, noting that completeness only constrains
[Pin Mapping].
The team discussed whether "param" as a term was appropriate, or whether a new
term should be adopted. Bob stated that, if the syntax is different, the name
should be different, as a preference.
The next meeting will continue in-document editing.
