All,
Sorry to miss the meeting on Friday. I am including a copy of the minutes,
with my comments inserted.
Mike showed the list of IBIS 6.2 BIRD candidates. He said we might merge
some
and delete some during the meeting. The new BIRD candidates were
identified
by letter.
BIRD A: Reserved name rule scoping clarifications
Bob said Walter had proposed that one in his ver6_2_draft_rev3_wmk.docx
document but it needed to be written as a BIRD. Mike showed
ver6_2_draft_rev3_wmk.docx. Bob said he and Walter had not reached
agreement
on it. The language is too specific. He said we would need to discuss the
fact that if certain words are used elsewhere they become case sensitive.
WMK> I defer to Bob totally on the rewrite of the reserved names GND, NC,
POWER, as long as it is clear that these reserved names do not apply to
Pin_names and Signal_names.
BIRD C: Ground symbol clarifications
Radek said it needed some work. Bob suggested A and C might be merged
into one BIRD.
We agreed and Mike made that change, noting that he will delete C later.
BIRD B: I/V table reference terminal clarifications
Bob said this extensive change should be written showing the full "before"
text and "after" text. Mike will write this BIRD.
BIRD D: Require one model_name per signal_name in [Pin]
Bob suggested this could be folded into BIRD 180. Mike wondered if the
ideas
should be considered separately so that one does not hamper the other. He
noted that Arpad wanted to wait on BIRD 180, which might preclude a future
syntax in which additional [Pin] data is spread across multiple lines.
Arpad said that the idea was to someday allow multiple buffers per pin.
Bob agreed BIRD D could remain separate. Radek said BIRD D and BIRD 180
may
have dependencies. Bob noted that BIRD 180 also fixed other issues such
as
CIRCUITCALL missing from a list of reserved words.
Radek requested discussion on a related topic at the end. Curtis noted
that Walter had suggested making a decision on BIRD 180 soon. That might
be done in ATM meetings. Arpad noted that there were other BIRDs related
to multi-chip package modeling submitted before Walter's, and that BIRD
180
would theoretically block those other BIRDs.
Arpad showed BIRD 125.1. Arpad described how this enabled multiple
connections
to pins. Bob noted that that applied to [Pin Numbers], not [Pin]. Arpad
said
it might apply to [Pin] too. Bob said the BIRD proposed something like an
EBD
version of [Define Package Model]. Radek said the Interconnect BIRD
relied
on the one to one connection rule. Arpad said Walter had said multi-chip
connections would be addressed in EBD or in some other future proposal.
Mike suggested we should not consider these BIRDs for 6.2, it fell outside
the scope of the effort. He also noted that BIRD 180 was written because
IBISCHK already flags an error for repeated entries in [Pin]. Bob said
[Interconnect Model] would allow connecting multiple buffers to a pin,
nothing technically would prevent two buffers from being connected
together by
a circuit. Curtis suggested the discussion should be taken up in ATM
meetings.
WMK> We are clearly doing all of this to smooth things over for the new
Interconnect BIRD. We made a fundamental decision (one pin per model, no
forks, no joins) in IBIS models at the beginning of the Interconnect BIRD
process. It is time to accept this commitment.
BIRD E: Specify POWER/GND [Pin Mapping] by [Pin]
Bob said Walter's proposal was not clear. Mike said it offered a
convenience
for model makers by allowing [Pin Mapping] entries to be omitted where
[Pin]
entries already convey the same information. Bob said [Define Package
Model]
makes references to bus_labels, and that may cause issues. Bob suggested
that
another question was whether a [Bus Label] BIRD should be considered. Mike
said that was part of the Interconnect Task Group work.
BIRD F: Specify buffer reference terminals for pins
Bob suggested BIRDs F and G could be combined, but it would be OK to do
nothing. Radek said this was part of GND cleanup. They might be combined
but
both proposals are useful. Bob said the [Pin Reference] proposal had
major
controversy. Mike proposed deleting BIRD F from the list, believing
Walter
had withdrawn his support. Radek wanted to keep it, did not recall it
being
dropped. He needed to see the minutes of discussions he might have missed
.
Bob said the proposal had a flaw relating to the requirement for a GND
pin.
Curtis said Bob had only objected to the assumption of a zero volt
reference.
Bob said it needs significant cleanup work. Mike noted that someone else
could submit that BIRD if there is interest.
WMK> The [Pin Reference] BIRD was not dropped, it was tabled. Anyone can
move to un=table it and consider it. I dropped support of it because I was
caught in the middle of two views on how to handle a component that had no
"GND" pin and the rails of the models in the component had non-zero DUT
voltages.
Curtis moved to adjourn. Bob seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned.
From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike LaBonte
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 7:18 PM
To: 'IBIS-Editorial' <ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-editorial] IBIS Editorial Task Group Meeting Minutes -
August 05, 2016
Minutes from the August 05, 2016 IBIS Editorial Task group meeting are
attached. A document presented in the meeting has been posted:
Title <http://ibis.org/editorial_wip/index-bytitle.htm>
Formats
Authors <http://ibis.org/editorial_wip/index-byauthor.htm>
Organization <http://ibis.org/editorial_wip/index-bycompany.htm>
Date <http://ibis.org/editorial_wip/index-bydate.htm>
IBIS 6.2 BIRD Candidates rev 2
.docx <http://ibis.org/editorial_wip/IBIS6.2_BIRD_candidates_2.docx>
Mike LaBonte
Signal Integrity Software (SiSoft)
Aug 05 2016
Mike
