[ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview
- From: "Walter Katz" <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Dmitriev-Zdorov, Vladimir" <vladimir_dmitriev-zdorov@xxxxxxxxxx>, <dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx>, <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:45:05 -0400
Vladimir,
There are two functions going on. One is the EDA tool that determines what
the model capabilities are and the allowed solution space. We made the
decision two years ago that the EDA tool gets this from the ASCII.ami file.
Then there is the simulator that needs to access the code. The simulator
needs to link to the dll, not the tool which is setting up the conditions to
run the DLL.
Walter
Walter Katz
303.449-2308
Mobile 720.333-1107
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
www.sisoft.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Dmitriev-Zdorov, Vladimir [mailto:vladimir_dmitriev-zdorov@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:38 PM
To: wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx; dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview
Walter,
But why EDA platform can't simply check the pointer to GetWave() function in
the loaded library and see if it is zero or not? I thought that this is
always possible.
Vladimir
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter Katz
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 5:05 PM
To: dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview
Danil,
There are a number of models that are truly LTI, and only have an Init. The
GetWave_Exist=False is how the ami file tells the EDA tool that this is the
case.
Walter
Walter Katz
303.449-2308
Mobile 720.333-1107
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
www.sisoft.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Danil Kirsanov
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 6:59 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview
Dear colleagues,
I would like to clarify one basic principle of AMI modeling, hoping that all
of us agree with it.
I believe that the model writer should never do a double-counting: if he
modified the channel impulse response in Init() to model some effect, he
should not model this effect in Getwave(). So he cannot put the "true" model
in GetWave() and it's linear approximation in Init(). If both types of
behavior are expected, there should be two models (or some internal flag
that changes the behavior of the model).
If this assumption is true, statistical (linear) simulator always works with
Init() function of the model, while pattern-dependent (non-linear) simulator
works with both Init() and GetWave() and I do not see any necessity for
Get_Wave_Exists flag.
Best,
Danil
Other related posts:
