All,
Draft6 along with previous drafts are uploaded under:
https://www.ibis.org/ver7.2_wip/
It has 412 pages. I used lower resolution for the PDF to reduce the file
size.
Bob
From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mirmak, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 5:50 PM
To: arpad.muranyi@xxxxxxxxxxx; ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: PAM_Thresholds interpretation
I elected to use Arpad's version, but can switch as the group decides.
Enclosed please find the updated draft 6.
Note that, in addition to the modified PAM_Thresholds text, we need to add
three more items to the Change list:
* Table 28 updated for PAM_Thresholds requirements
* Figure 44 caption added and related broken cross-references fixed
* Minor grammatical corrections (e.g., inappropriate use of
"parentheses" rather than "parenthesis" in some areas, at least one
incorrect dash when an underscore was needed)
Hopefully that's it.
* MM
From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 5:41 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: PAM_Thresholds interpretation
All,
I just saw Walter's email from about 4 hours ago (it landed in my junk box
for some reason).
His response and mine are pretty much in agreement using different wording.
I prefer my
wording but I am not stuck on it, as long as the message is that the EDA
tool takes what the
model returns (and not what is in the .ami file's placeholder).
Thanks,
Arpad
============================================================================
From: Mirmak, Michael <michael.mirmak@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 7:17 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad (DI SW EBS PST AV) <arpad.muranyi@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: PAM_Thresholds interpretation
Arpad,
This certainly makes sense.
I have made all the other corrections needed and am ready to distribute the
updated file once we decide this issue.
* MM
From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 3:11 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: PAM_Thresholds interpretation
Weston, and Everyone,
Reading that sentence in context tells me that instead of:
"The EDA tool uses the voltages passed in through this parameter"
we should have written:
"The EDA tool uses the voltages returned by the executable model through
this parameter"
The reason I think this is because the first sentence in "Definition" says:
"Voltages used by EDA tools for PAMn waveform and eye processing."
and combining that with the parameter being Usage Out, the only way
the EDA tool can receive this value is if it is returned by the executable
model.
If we agree on this, I would suggest that Michael should change this
sentence as I propose above.
Thanks,
Arpad
==============================================================
From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Beal, Weston
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 3:18 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] PAM_Thresholds interpretation
All,
After Walter asked about the interpretation of the PAM_Thresholds parameter
this morning, I thought I should look into it to increase my understanding.
While the specification does not explicitly say that the string in the AMI
file must contain anything, the description and the example imply that the
string should have n-1 numbers in it. The description says, "The EDA tool
uses the voltages passed in through this parameter", which implies to me
that the string value in the AMI file should have n-1 numbers in it. Then in
the example code the string has 3 numbers in it.
(PAM_Thresholds (Usage Out) (Type String)
(Description "Thresholds for waveform and eye processing.")
(Value "0.00 0.00 0.00")
)
Maybe this needs a BIRD to clarify that the Value in the AMI file is only a
placeholder and the string value is ignored. On the other hand, the
description and the example imply that the model might use these numbers in
some way. This conflicts with the Usage Out syntax. So, either way, it seems
to be inconsistent.
Regards,
Weston
