Kukal, So you want to make it easy for the model makers by having Init return two impulse responses, the current ones that is used for the “Init” flow, and a second one that the EDA tool would presumably use in the following way: For Tx, the EDA tool would convolve this second impulse response with the output of Tx GetWave. For Rx, the EDA tool would convolve this second impulse response with the input to Rx GetWave. 1. Please confirm that this is what you propose to do with the second impulse response that you want the Init function to return. 2. And if you do confirm this, cannot the model maker pass this Impulse Response to its GetWave, and have its GetWave do this convolution. Assume you confirm 1., then what is the compelling reason for us to change the outputs of Init to make it simpler for a model maker to eliminate a trivial convolution that he can do in his GetWave function? Walter From: Taranjit Kukal [mailto:kukal@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 6:53 AM To: wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx; 'ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' Subject: Re: [ibis-macro] AMI-init should pass modified IR to getwave.... Hi Walter, I meant model-makers who want to use both init and getwave in conjunction for transient flow v/s those who want to do everything in getwave. Apologize if this statement was confusing.. Rgds From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 02:25 PM To: Taranjit Kukal; 'IBIS-ATM' <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] AMI-init should pass modified IR to getwave.... Kukal, Who are “those” in you statement “those who want to leverage init as complement to getwave and those who want to keep statistical-flow purely independent.” Walter From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Taranjit Kukal Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:04 AM To: 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: [ibis-macro] AMI-init should pass modified IR to getwave.... Hi All, When I was implementing AMI model, I found a situation where it was important that Rx ami_init needed to pass modified-IR to getwave function. Reason was that Chip-RDL-routing was available as Impulse-Responses. Removal for “Use_Init_Output” to make Statistical-flow independent of Transient-flow, is going to break the original intent where init and getwave were supposed to work in conjunction with each other handling linear and non-linear filtering portions respectively (as shown below) cid:image001.png@01CD49C5.F040DCA0 I would go back to Arpad’s suggestion (year 2010) for having two Impulse-responses coming out of ami_init - One that goes to EDA tool for statistical flow - One that gets passed to getwave to allow splitting of modeling-effort across init and getwave and make things easy for linear filters. BIRD120 was brought up that deprecates use of “use_init_output” with a view to keep statistical and time-domain simulations independent. But as I think more, we need to allow both capabilities. It absolutely does not make sense to implement simple linear filters within getwave when we can convolute the filter-IR with channel-IR. We should take all steps to make modeling easy and ensure enough flexibility. This way, we cover both the scenarios – those who want to leverage init as complement to getwave and those who want to keep statistical-flow purely independent. Since this does not bring any disadvantage, I strongly feel that we all re-consider outputting two modified-IRs out of init function – one for statistical-flow and another one to complement getwave filtering. Rgds ..kukal