Michael,
I think the problem is with the wording and its interpretation:
"All the input from the AMI parameter definition file"
What does "input" mean here. I suspect that the authors were thinking about
the Usage In and InOut AMI parameters, while you seem to be interpreting this
as if the entire content of the .ami file was "the input" (to be passed into the
AMI executable model) (?).
Your suggested wording seems to be correct to me:
"Input parameters from the AMI parameter definition file"
Thanks,
Arpad
===================================================================
From: Mirmak, Michael <michael.mirmak@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 6:51 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>; ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Question on assumed AMI parameter passing: "all" or "some"?
Arpad,
Thank you! It answers a different question, which is "do we have a problem?".
Bluntly put, we appear to have a conflict, or at least some ambiguity, between
the requirement of Format ("only send Usage In or InOut") and the language of
AMI_Parameters_In ("All the input from the AMI parameter definition file is
passed to the algorithmic model").
I would suggest the following:
1. That the language of AMI_Parameters_In be modified to "Input parameters
from the AMI parameter definition file (i.e., Usage In and Usage InOut
parameters) are passed to the algorithmic model".
2. That the language of Format be modified to "Usage Info and Usage Out
parameters should not be passed to the executable model by the EDA tool;
parameters of Usage In or Usage InOut should always be passed to the executable
model by the EDA tool."
The "should" language replaces "shall" because the specification does not cover
what EDA tools do, generally, and there is no way for the parser to verify what
the EDA tools are passing to the model. Given the circumstances, we also do
not want to invalidate existing tool behavior and this would not invalidate
current tools per se.
* MM
From:
ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2022 3:40 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: Question on assumed AMI parameter passing: "all"
or "some"?
Michael,
Does this answer your question (pg. 237):
[cid:image001.png@01D8D825.E64E7280]
Thanks,
Arpad
========
From:
ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
On Behalf Of Mirmak, Michael
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 10:29 AM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Question on assumed AMI parameter passing: "all" or
"some"?
There is a potential ambiguity in the specification regarding what parameters
are passed between the EDA tool and the AMI model executable.
Specifically:
IBIS 7.1, page 223, contains the following text (with added highlighting):
"AMI_parameters_in
The AMI_parameters_in argument is a pointer to a string. Memory for the string
is allocated and de-allocated by the EDA tool. All the input from the AMI
parameter definition file is passed to the algorithmic model using a string
that has been formatted as using the tree structure defined below.
The AMI_parameters_in argument must always be present in the AMI_Init function
call and it must always contain the address of a valid string. The string must
always contain at least the root name of the parameters tree, even if there are
no parameters to pass to the algorithmic model."
If you pass "all the input" to the model, then how could there be "no
parameters to pass to the algorithmic model"? Quite a few parameters are
required (e.g., "GetWave Exists").
Several tools are known to selectively pass only Usage In or Usage InOut to the
model. Yet there are other tools which pass the entire parameter tree to the
model.
Which approach is correct?
The technical impact of the difference is likely small, but could grow in
future: if models are written assuming only some parameters are expected as
part of AMI_Parameters_In, then unexpected parameters could cause issues for
some models. In addition, should we pass larger structures in future, we may
want to be more selective to ensure efficiency.
Thoughts?
Thank you!
* MM