Mike,
Good question. [Package Model] simply identifies by name which package
model data is to be used for a given component, but the actual definition of
the package model data to use is provided using the other two keywords
mentioned on line (3). Those other two keywords are at the same level of
the keyword hierarchy as [Component]. [Package] and [Pin], however, are
hierarchically under [Component] in their entirety. We should probably
clarify this section on these points.
In addition, we do need to explicitly state whether [Interconnect Model Set]
should be at the same level as [Component] or not.
- MM
From: ibis-interconn-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-interconn-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike LaBonte
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 7:40 AM
To: IBIS-Interconnect <ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-interconn] Re: Interconnect BIRD Draft 47 for team review
A question about page 8:
The order of precedence for package model data to be used by EDA tools in
simulation is defined below, in ascending order. If a package data format
at a numerically higher position on the list is available in an IBIS or
related file, that data shall be considered by the EDA tool to be more
detailed and is therefore preferred.
1. [Component]/[Package]
2. [Component]/[Pin]
3. [Package Model] (including [Alternate Package Models] and [Define
Package Model])
4. [Interconnect Model Set Selector]
Why are only two keywords explicitly listed as falling under [Component],
when in fact all of them are?
Mike
From: ibis-interconn-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-interconn-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-interconn-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mirmak, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 4:30 PM
To: IBIS-Interconnect (ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> )
Subject: [ibis-interconn] Interconnect BIRD Draft 47 for team review
Please find enclosed draft 47 of the Interconnect BIRD proposal. This
includes all the changes suggested during today's meeting. In addition,
numerous minor corrections and changes for consistency have been made.
Finally, Table and Figure numbers and captions have been added where
missing, using the numbering present in the current 6.1 IBIS document, but
not taking any other approved BIRDs into account.
Please review the draft in preparation for next week's meeting, particularly
keeping in mind the status update/report we will be making to the IBIS
Summit at DesignCon. Thank you!
- MM
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
