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
