Hello Everyone,
Attached is draft 2 of the [Designator Pin List] relaxation BIRD.
I extended my proposed text so that it now includes signal_name and bus_label.
Note that I did this without mentioning how many rows (pin names) should be
present when signal_name or bus_label are used. I did that because this is
totally
up to the model maker to decide. We (the spec) have no idea how many ground
pins in the .ibs or .emd file would belong to a certain signal_name or
bus_label in
the EMD file’s [Designator Pin List]. Only the model maker knows that.
Also note that I didn’t say anything about whether additional pins are
prohibited.
So as it stands currently, they are allowed. We can change that easily, but I
don’t
know what the popular view is on that.
One more thing:
As I was working on this, I noticed that the v7.1 spec doesn’t say that the pin
names
in the first column of the [Designator Pin List] keyword must match with the pin
names in the designator’s pin list. (At least I didn’t find anything on this
now). So
it seems that we could have U1.xyz in the EMD [Designator Pin List] and the
corresponding .ibs or .end file is not required to have an identical pin name.
If this is correct, I think we might want to address this with a statement that
spells
out this requirement… But please correct me if I missed it.
Thanks,
Arpad
========================================================================
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 6:00 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD draft relaxing [Designator Pin List] requirement
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<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 8:01 AM
To: Muranyi, Arpad <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>>;
ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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]