Walter, (and Everyone),
Thanks for your comment, that’s a good catch. I thought about signal names and
bus label names
at some point while I was writing the BIRD draft, but by the time I got done
with that complicated
sentence, I forgot about them and thought I was done. I will work on this some
more.
As to the question you raised when signal names or bus label names are used on
the terminal line,
how many designator pins should be listed, I would say at least one should be
required, but more
or all should be allowed. Think about the merged pins situation, you may want
to merge a bunch
of pins into just one, but in some cases you might want to merge groups of them
into several different
pins. I will have to think through all these scenarios and figure out how to
write this BIRD correctly.
However, there is one more question that I was reminded to by reading the draft
minutes Curtis sent
me. Radek made a comment about the possibility to prohibit those component
pins from being
listed to which there are no connections made by any EMD models. So the
question is this:
Should we only relax the current requirement so that unused pins are not
required to be listed (but
they are allowed, if that’s what someone would like to do), or should unused
pins be prohibited
from being listed under [Designator Pin List]? In the former case we might
want to do something
about ‘NC’, but in the latter case we won’t need ‘NC’, since it would be
guaranteed that all pins
listed will have a model connected to them.
Thanks,
Arpad
=====================================================================================
From: Walter Katz <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 8:01 AM
To: Muranyi, Arpad <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: BIRD draft relaxing [Designator Pin List] requirement
Arpad,
“matching designator pin name” does not cover the case when a terminal
reference a rail signal_name or bus_label. Consider the case of a terminal line
referencing signal name VDD. Do we need all designator pins that have signal
name VDD? Personally, It would make the [Designator Pin List] only include one
of the IBIS VDD pins.
Walter
Walter Katz
Work 508.647-7633
Cell 720.417-3762
[Description: Description: Visit MathWorks.com]
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> On
Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 3:50 AM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] BIRD draft relaxing [Designator Pin List] requirement
Hello Everyone,
Attached is a BIRD draft on the topic of removing the requirement to list all
designator
pins in the [Designator Pin List] keyword. The BIRD is rather simple, but the
proposed
sentence needs a good dose of attention from the reader… 😊
If possible, I would like to discuss this BIRD draft in the next ATM meeting
also. Please
take a few moments and read it (very) carefully so we can make any corrections
if
necessary.
Note that I did NOT address the question of adding the reserved ‘NC’
signal_type. As
I was re-reading this area of the EMD spec (for the umpteenth time), I ran into
a bunch
of questions that I need to straighten out in my mind before I can formulate a
proposal
for that. That’s the next thing I will attempt to do.
Thanks,
Arpad
===========================================================================