Walter,
To be honest, I am quite confused about your response.
Regarding #1:
How would the EDA tool make a proxy model for Init? Where would the information
come from to do so? When we talk about a proxy model for GetWave, we can do
that based on the information used or generated by Init, but I don’t see a
similar
option for a proxy Init function. Could you explain what you have in mind?
Regarding #2:
I thought we did proxy GetWave functions based on the same model’s Init
function.
I don’t understand what you mean by making a proxy GetWave “using the other
AMI_GetWave results of those models in the channel that have
GetWave_Exists=True”.
How could the GetWave function of other devices provide the information for
making
a proxy model for a different vendor’s part?
Regarding #3:
I don’t understand why you are proposing/hoping to agree on something that is
problematic. I thought your previous suggestion to agree to document the flows
for only three model types (Init only, GetWAve only and Dual) was because those
were the only non-problematic flows/model types. If anything, I thought you
would
hope to agree on that…
Thanks,
Arpad
==================================================================
From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 4:51 AM
To: Muranyi, Arpad <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Comments on BIRD166.3 and last week's ATM discussion
Arpad,
Your assessment is correct. The sum total of this discussion is that the only
Redriver flows that we should all be able to agree on is the statistical flow
when all models have Init_Returns_Impulse=True, and a time domain flow when all
models have GetWave_Exists=True as defined in BIRD166. We should also be able
to agree that:
1. If any model has Init_Returns_Impulse=False, the EDA tool must create a
proxy AMI_Init function for that model to get statistical results.
2. If any model has GetWave_Exists=False then the EDA tool must create a
proxy AMI_GetWave function in order to get time domain results using the other
AMI_GetWave results of those models in the channel that have
GetWave_Exists=True.
3. The implementation of either proxy AMI_Init or proxy AMI_GetWave
functions can be problematic.
I would be satisfied if the Open Forum passed a resolution agreeing to the
above statement, and just leave BIRD 166 in purgatory, and not include it in
IBIS 7.0.
Walter
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 9:21 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Comments on BIRD166.3 and last week's ATM discussion
Hello Everyone,
I decided to write this email to the ATM reflector, so that Walter can also
respond
(since he will not be able to attend our meeting tomorrow).
This is based on the latest posted version of BIRD166 is draft 5 for BIRD166.3:
http://ibis.org/macromodel_wip/archive/20170523/walterkatz/BIRD%20166.3%20Resolving%20problems%20with%20Redriver%20Init%20Flow%20draft%205/bird166.3_draft5.docx
The main comment I have is about step 8b, which could be summarized as follows:
If any of the GetWave functions are missing, the TD flow relies entirely on the
Init
functions. But this will only work if the Init_Returns_Impulse parameter=true
for
every single Init function. While the spec does require that
Init_Returns_Impulse
must be true for a model in which GetWave_Extists=false, there is no requirement
or guarantee that any other model will also have Init_Returns_Impulse set to
true.
(This statement is actually true even for a regular single channel simulation).
For
this reason, the rule in 8b is not guaranteed to work, unless every one of the
models
has GetWave_Exists=false. But then we are back to an “Init_only flow” executed
in
TD simulations.
With that, I wonder if having 8b in the spec helps to solve anything...
Having said that, if we decided to remove 8b from the BIRD, the only remaining
question
seems to be whether we should go with the idea of “only document the three
cases”
(Init only, GetWave only and Dual models) and say that do all other
combinations “at your
own risk”. If we all agree with that, we could be done. (But this is a mild
way of saying
that we really don’t support any other cases). Otherwise the only way I see
out of this
situation is to do something along the lines of Fangyi’s proposal (or its
variants, i.e.
execute Init multiple times, etc…) as the solution.
Comments, questions, suggestions are welcome…
Thanks,
Arpad
=======================================================================
