[ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview

  • From: <fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <kumarchi@xxxxxxxxx>, <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>, <dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx>, <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <vladimir_dmitriev-zdorov@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:30:56 -0600

Hi, Kumar;

 

My understanding is that in the new flow that Walter and Arpad are working so 
hard on, a model can support both time domain and statistical simulations by 
returning equalizer filter (exact for LTI or approximate for non-LTI) in Init.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, Walter.

 

Thanks,

Fangyi

 

From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of C. Kumar
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 5:08 PM
To: wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx; dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
vladimir_dmitriev-zdorov@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview

 

actually that is a good idea; will eliminate duplication
i.e if the model just uses init it should have null pointer for getwave

--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Dmitriev-Zdorov, Vladimir 
<vladimir_dmitriev-zdorov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: Dmitriev-Zdorov, Vladimir <vladimir_dmitriev-zdorov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview
To: wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx, dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx, ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 7:37 PM

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: