[ibis-quality] Minutes from the 1 sep 2009 ibis-quality meeting

From: "Mike LaBonte (milabont)" <milabont@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ibis-quality@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 10:48:05 -0400

Minutes from the 1 sep 2009 ibis-quality meeting are attached.

Mike

Minutes, IBIS Quality Committee

01 September 2009

11-12 AM EST (8-9 AM PST)

ROLL CALL
  Adam Tambone
* Anders Ekholm, Ericsson
  Barry Katz, SiSoft
  Benny Lazer
  Benjamin P Silva
  Bob Cox, Micron
* Bob Ross, Teraspeed Consulting Group
  Brian Arsenault
  David Banas, Xilinx
* Eckhard Lenski, Nokia Siemens Networks
  Eric Brock
  Guan Tao, Huawei Technologies
  Gregory R Edlund
  Hazem Hegazy
  Huang Chunxing, Huawei Technologies
  John Figueroa
  John Angulo, Mentor Graphics
  Katja Koller, Nokia Siemens Networks
  Kevin Fisher
  Kim Helliwell, LSI Logic
  Lance Wang, IOMethodology
  Lynne Green
* Mike LaBonte, Cisco Systems
  Mike Mayer, SiSoft
* Moshiul Haque, Micron Technology
  Muniswarareddy Vorugu, ARM Ltd
* Pavani Jella, TI
  Peter LaFlamme
  Randy Wolff, Micron Technology
  Radovan Vuletic, Qimonda
  Robert Haller, Enterasys
  Roy Leventhal, Leventhal Design & Communications
  Sherif Hammad, Mentor Graphics
  Todd Westerhoff, SiSoft
  Tom Dagostino, Teraspeed Consulting Group
  Kazuyoshi Shoji, Hitachi
  Sadahiro Nonoyama
  Liqun, Huawei

Everyone in attendance marked by *

NOTE: "AR" = Action Required.

-----------------------MINUTES ---------------------------
Mike LaBonte conducted the meeting.

Call for opens and patent disclosures:

- Bob: Would like to discuss static overshoot

- Mike: Would like to discuss final IQ 2.0 URL 

- No one declared a patent.

AR Review:

- Mike post IQ PDF to agreed URL and email ibis-quality list
  - Done

- Mike and Bob announce release of IQ spec for Open Forum review
  - Done
  - Not much feedback
  - Bob pointed out the length of the table of contents

- Mike change web site to avoid using frames
  - Ongoing

New items:

AR: Mike try to reduce TOC to 2 pages

Should we have a link to the review spec?
- We looked at the IBIS Quality web page

AR: Mike link to new IQ 2.0 document on our web page

Discussion of static overshoot:
- We looked at IQ 5.2.5. {LEVEL 2}  [Model Spec] S_Overshoot sub-parameters 
complete and match data sheet
- Bob: If the buffer is 3-state the overshoot limit is for protection, not 
function
- Anders: IBIS assumes it is for function
  - We passed a BIRD
- Mike: Is this for outputs or inputs?
- Bob: It should apply for all modes
- Anders: Agree
- Bob: The parser warns on static_overshoot for an output-only device
  - Since IBISCHK 3
  - A 3-state could be harmed by a large excursion
  - We should remove this warning
  - Currently this warning would be waived
- Anders: 5.2.5 does not talk about inputs and outputs
  - Maybe a change would help force the BUG
- We looked at [Model Spec] S_overshoot* in the IBIS 5 spec
  - It does not discuss input vs. output
- Mike: So the parser is wrong
- Bob: The IQ spec implies it applies to input capable buffers only
- Mike: The first sentence does not say "must" or "should"
  - It says "The functional limits may not be found in some data sheets"
  - We should change "All input and I/O buffers have" to "All buffers should 
have"
- Bob: It may be that overshoot limits are not known for 90% of buffers
- Anders: But we are saying that this check must be passed for level 2
- Anders: The parser is stopping people from putting in s_overshoot
- Bob: The Visual IBIS tool uses IBISCHK 3.2
  - Mike checked and found it using 4.1
- Eckhard: Some files pass the official 4.1 IBISCHK but Visual IBIS fails them
- Bob: It would be nice if they adopted 4.2
  - Vendors are free to support whatever they want
  - It would be best if they had a "standard IBIS checking" option
- Mike: It would be best to say that no waiver is required due to the bug
- Moshiul: Other checks have the same problem, especially with older parsers
  - There was a problem with differential pins
- Mike: This is different because we know the parser will change, but has not 
yet
- Bob: Vendors will decide whether to use X
- Mike: X means something inside is important enough to look inside before using
  - I would still put in the comment
- We added "should" to 5.2.5
- Mike: Can we remove "input and I/O"?
- Anders: Only if we want to make many files be level 2
- Bob: They could be level 2 with an exception
- Mike: What are the reasons IC vendors tend not to provide this?
- Moshiul: Some IBIS tools don't use it
  - DDR specifies it differently
  - The info comes from JEDEC
- Pavani: We only have absolute maximum ratings
  - Some customers asked us to use absolute max for S_overshoot
  - It is probably more critical for DDR
- Bob: JEDEC now species area under a curve in [Receiver Thresholds]
- Mike: That is dynamic overshoot, not static
- Anders: We do get separate specs for functional and protection limits
- Bob: Bob Haller wanted all IBIS sub-params present
- Anders: This does not affect the waveforms produced
  - It is not as critical to accuracy
- Mike: We do check overshoot but have to find it if IBIS doesn't have it

Meeting ended at 12:12 PM Eastern Time.

[ibis-quality] Minutes from the 1 sep 2009 ibis-quality meeting

Other related posts: