Kumar,
While two models might make the EDA vendor's job easier (and might make
specifying a reference flow easier), it will most decidedly NOT make
the end-user's job easier. Shifting the burden to the end-user to make
our job easier isn't a good tradeoff.
We have to write specs and EDA code once - users will have to use these
tools every day. It's worth the extra work at the standards level to
discuss and document how Init() and Getwave() support both statistical
and time-domain simulations. From where I sit, this is largely a
documentation task - the current flow and models already support both
Statistical and Time-Domain analysis, as does Walter's new flow.
Todd.
Todd Westerhoff
VP, Software Products
SiSoft
6 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250
Maynard, MA 01754
(978) 461-0449 x24
twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx
www.sisoft.com
C. Kumar wrote:
i am just saying that in that case there should be two
separate models; one which implements getwave and another which just
uses the init
this will make the flow also that much clearer and easier
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Walter Katz <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: Walter Katz <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview
To: kumarchi@xxxxxxxxx, ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 7:47 PM
Kumar,
If you think the EDA tool
should do nothing with the impulse response
returned for the Init call, then just ignore it. We absolutely should
not
prevent model maker from giving the EDA tool additional information
that the
EDA tool could use if it wants to.
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 C. Kumar
Sent:
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
7:23 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
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unsubscribe
|
