Corrected the meeting date, as noted in today's meeting.
Regards,
Justin
From: Justin Butterfield (jdbutterfiel)
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 6:12 PM
To: IBIS-Interconnect (ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
<ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: IBIS Interconnect Task Group Meeting Minutes - May 18, 2022
Minutes from the May 18, 2022 IBIS Interconnect Task Group meeting are attached.
Regards,
Justin
================================================================================
IBIS INTERCONNECT TASK GROUP
http://www.ibis.org/interconnect_wip/ ;
Mailing list: ibis-interconnect@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Archives at //www.freelists.org/archive/ibis-interconn/ ;
================================================================================
Attendees from May 18, 2022 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio)
ANSYS Curtis Clark
Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak
Michael Brownell
Keysight Technologies Ming Yan
Marvell Steve Parker
MathWorks Walter Katz*
Micron Technology Justin Butterfield*
Randy Wolff*
Siemens EDA Arpad Muranyi*
ST Microelectronics Aurora Sanna
Teraspeed Labs Bob Ross*
University of Illinois Jose Schutt-Aine
Zuken USA Lance Wang*
Randy Wolff convened the meeting. No patents were declared.
Justin Butterfield took minutes.
Review of Minutes:
- Randy called for review of the minutes from the May 11, 2022 meeting.
Randy displayed the minutes. Arpad Muranyi motioned to approve the
minutes. Bob Ross seconded. The minutes were approved without objection.
Review of ARs:
- Arpad to give an example of the physical connectivity needed for EMD
automation.
- Arpad reported he has not taken any action on this. Randy suggested to
keep this open [AR].
Opens:
- Randy noted there was some discussion with John Baprawski. John has an
interest in creating a way of passing channel impulse responses as a standard
format. John has a presentation that goes into the details. Randy suggested
to invite him to a future meeting to discuss the topic. Walter noted an
impulse response could be handled in a .csv file. His implementation of the
impulse response file has column headers. Walter asked what is the value of
standardizing the impulse response format. Randy noted the problem is that
sometimes there are differences between EDA tools, and the impulse response
could be one way to validate the AMI model. Walter commented the main issue
would be differences in the time steps. Randy asked if would want to talk
about this soon. Walter replied it is not related to Touchstone.
Discussion:
Port Naming:
Walter noted the main issue is if we want to support the differential and
Chord signaling labeling. He would like to get agreement before moving
forward. Randy noted we also need to decide the order of the columns, as some
information is optional.
PLS in Touchstone TSIRD Draft:
Bob commented that the plan is to create one Touchstone specification, but
that is independent from where the data is added. The port naming can be
added as well. Randy agreed we could combine the proposals in a Touchstone 3
specification. Bob suggested to keep things grouped in the specification.
Walter noted, if we take Touchstone 2 and add the PLS, most of the keywords
apply. But, he was not sure about the option line. For instance, the format
would not be used. He asked if we would have a different option line. Arpad
suggested we can add a rule that the format is not used for pole-residue.
Walter noted Mixed Mode Order could still work, but the examples are all for
Network Data. The mixed mode conversion relationships do not work for
pole-residue data. Bob noted this is an open question on how to deal with this.
Arpad asked about the option line, which was kept for backward compatibility,
but some of the information is documented in other keywords. Randy suggested
the parser could recreate the option line when down converting to older
formats. Bob suggested we should keep the option line, since most Touchstone
files are in Touchstone 1 format. Walter strongly suggested to follow the
IBIS precedence of backwards compatibility and not deprecate the option line.
Bob suggested to keep the existing lines for Touchstone data, and we could
have new keywords for the PLS data. Walter stated we already have a keyword
for the reference impedance. He asked if we would want to have a shortcut to
set the reference impedances to all the same value.
Randy suggested we could have "PR" in the format field of the option line.
Arpad asked if we have network data and PLS data in the same file, what would
the option line be. Walter suggested these would be separate sections and
each could have an option line. Bob agreed with separate sections, but we
need some checking that the data is consistent. A third section could be the
Port Naming. Walter stated we may want a keyword to specify the name of the
Touchstone file that the PLS data is generated from. Bob commented that we
already have an Information keyword. Walter noted this is not machine
readable.
Walter has gone through and looked at what changes would be needed in
Touchstone to add the PLS. By combining the syntax for Touchstone and PLS, we
may have cases where we need to say for Touchstone do this and for PLS do
that. Walter will send the draft PLS document [AR].
Port Naming:
Walter will plan to add the reference section. He will remove chord. He
thought the only remaining issue is with the order of the columns. Arpad
asked if there are any optional columns. Walter replied only the differential
column is optional. We could make logical name and physical name optional to
have one or the other.
Arpad motioned to adjourn. Bob seconded.
Next Meeting:
The next meeting will be May 25.
================================================================================
Bin List:
1. Touchstone 3
2. Pole-residue support for Touchstone
3. Port naming
