[ibis-editorial] Re: An ambiguity?

From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 21:59:30 +0000

I think the highlighted text could easily be fixed "to my liking" if we changed
them like this:

From:

"they override any interconnect package models defined using the [Package],
[Pin], or [Define Package Model] keywords."

to:

"they override any interconnect package models defined for the same pins using
the [Package], [Pin], or [Define Package Model] keywords."

and the same for the next sentence.  From:

"override any interconnect package models defined in the same .ibs file using
the [Package], [Pin], or [Define Package Model] keywords."

to:

"override any interconnect package models defined for the same pins in the same
.ibs file using the [Package], [Pin], or [Define Package Model] keywords."

This wording eliminates the interpretation that the intent of having an
incomplete BIRD189
model is that the unmodeled pins should be simulated without any package
models.  Can
we make this change as an editorial change, or do we need a BIRD for this?

Thanks,

Arpad
======================================================================

From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 1:31 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] An ambiguity?

I am trying to find information on how the package hierarchy work with the new
BIRD189 syntax.
This is the only thing I could find so far:

[cid:image001.png@01D49621.7C432790]

But this does not say anything about how this "overriding" should be done.
Does this mean that
if I find [Interconnect Model Set] in an .ibs file, that none of the legacy
package models should be
in effect, even if this [Interconnect Model Set] doesn't provide a model for a
bunch of pins, or
does it mean that only those pins which are described by the [Interconnect
Model Set] should
be overridden in the legacy models?

I know we talked a lot about this because there is an added complication here
due to coupled
package models.  But if this is the only thing we say, I think it is too vague.
We should try to be
a little more specific, similar to what we did in the [Pin Numbers] section.
This might need a
BIRD, so I am willing to let it slide until v7.1, but we should at least list
it as a known issue...

Thanks,

Arpad
===========================================================================

References:
- [ibis-editorial] An ambiguity?
  - From: Muranyi, Arpad

[ibis-editorial] Re: An ambiguity?

Other related posts: