[ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview
- From: "C. Kumar" <kumarchi@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
danil:
I agree with you. Two different results coming form the same model will lead to
real confusion.
following walter's suggestion I am putting together what i hope is a simpler
flow. The idea is to prevent getting two different results for the same model
--- On Thu, 10/15/09, Danil Kirsanov <dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Danil Kirsanov <dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, October 15, 2009, 11:29 AM
Fangyi,
Could you please clarify it? I agree that it might be reasonable
to put the linear part of the model in Init and non-linear part in Getwave, so
that together they characterize the model (statistical simulator uses
only the linear part, while the pattern-dependent always uses both).
But I strongly disagree that inside one model Init and
GetWave can provide different approximations of the same algorithm (i.e.
introducing double-counting), where statistical simulator uses Init and
pattern-dependent
simulator uses GetWave. I believe this behavior should be prohibited, since it
makes
the flow more complicated, and we can easily achieve the same result providing
two different models (or having internal option to switch the model between the
statistical and non-linear mode).
If we have this simple rule (non-linear simulator we always uses
Init and Getwave), the behavior of the EDA does not depend on the fact whether
GetWave exists or not, and GetWaveExists flag becomes unnecessary (if the
Simulator
at some point figures out there is no GetWave, it just does not use it).
Are we on the same page here?
Best,
Danil
From:
fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:48 PM
To: kumarchi@xxxxxxxxx; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview
Hi, Kumar;
What if a model wants to support non-linear time domain
simulation by GetWave and statistical simulation by returning a LTI
approximation in Init?
Thanks,
Fangyi
From:
ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of C. Kumar
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:23 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview
i agree..
if the model modifies the init it is the only thing it should be doing. there
should not be any getwave
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Danil Kirsanov <dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: Danil Kirsanov <dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 6:59 PM
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:
