Vladimir,What do you mean by monotonicity issues with clock ticks? Do you the values of time don't continue to increase?
Todd. -- Todd Westerhoff VP, Software Products SiSoft 6 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA. 01754 (978) 461-0449 x24 twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx www.sisoft.comOn Mar 29, 2010, at 10:07 AM, "Dmitriev-Zdorov, Vladimir" <vladimir_dmitriev-zdorov@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
As a matter of fact, more than half of all AMI models that we have seenso far had more or less serious issues with clock ticks - way of generation, consistency, monotonocity, unnecessary granulation making them multiples of sample interval, etc. This is an indication that we need to better specify what is the right unambiguous behavior, not just syntaxically correct but the one that allows model creator to reach their simulation goal provided that they (and EDA tool) comply with the standard -----Original Message----- From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott McMorrow Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:44 AM To: Mike Steinberger Cc: wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx; Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: FW: Question on clock_times Mike, I submit that the AMI specification defines a functionally flawedsystem, and an ambiguous specification. That AMI simulation can occurin spite of this is interesting, but not sufficient for a EIA specification. Scott Mike Steinberger wrote:Scott- I submit that the existing AMI specification defines a syntax whichhas enabled a number of _EDA_ _vendors_ to develop AMI simulation as asystem. That was our goal. Mike S. Scott McMorrow wrote:Mike Great. Now we're on the right track. How do we get back to a specification that functionally does what I want as a user? Quite frankly, the original developers of the AMI specification failed to develop a decent functional model for AMI simulation as a system. This has lead to major issues that, in my opinion, need to be resolved going forward. best regards, Scott Mike Steinberger wrote:Scott- Walter has asked me to answer 2., and I'm pleased to do that. The short answer to 2. is: The EDA platform does _not_ know whether a given model has a CDR or not, and has no direct way to determine that one way or another for certain. You may think that if the model returns clock ticks, then the model has a CDR; but even that's not true. The first Tx model SiSoft published outputs clock ticks because we wanted to exercise that feature of the AMI interface; but you know by looking at the code that there's no CDR in there. Todd tried to assert a simple fact that people have somehow failed to embrace:As long as the model meets the stated software interface definition,it is the EDA platform's responsibility to respond appropriately. What the preceding discussion has quite correctly demonstrated is that it's possible for a model to do something nonsensical and yet be compliant with the software interface definition. This is an instance of the classic distinction between syntax and semantics. The fact of the matter is that all one can expect from any software interface definition is that it unambiguously defines the _syntax_ of the interface. While one may also make some attempt to focus the_semantics_ of the information crossing the interface, the semanticsshould not be so tightly constrained as to unduly limit the possibilities. As a standards organization, we struggle with this challenge daily, and there are no simple or complete answers. What this means for the software developer, and especially the EDA platform developer, is the software must take the most sensible course of action when, not if, it gets syntactically correct but semantically nonsensical data. The rock is elated. Mike S. Scott McMorrow wrote:I have several questions regarding clock ticks, Walter 1. Why would you say that it is "highly unlikely" that a clocktickdoes not occur during a getWave call? I'd think that thestartupbehavior of a PLL would be such that one would want to filter out the initial invalid clock ticks until the PLL has locked. The alternative would be to output the actual stream ofgarbageclock ticks produced by the CDR before lock occurs. 2. Assuming that it is perfectly valid for getWave to return -1inthe 1st position for both a device with a CDR and without aCDR,how is a device with CDR and one without CDR distinguished by the EDA platform? 3. What is the desired clock_ticks behavior if the CDR goes outoflock during waveform processing, considering that this isquitepossible for cases where S/N is extremely low and/or noise/jitter pushes the device beyond compliance limits. * Output the modeled clock ticks * Output -1 until lock occurs-- Scott McMorrow Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC 121 North River Drive Narragansett, RI 02882 (401) 284-1827 Business (401) 284-1840 Fax http://www.teraspeed.com Teraspeed(r) is the registered service mark of Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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