Mike, I don't think you're missing anything, you're bringing up a valid point that's been touched on before, but not explicitly discussed in this thread. <side point> Before I get started, I need to comment on simulator compliance. IBIS is a device modeling spec; it's up to EDA vendors to implement partial or complete support, and establish that to their customer's satisfaction. We've gone down the road of trying to establish how completely a given EDA vendor supported IBIS in the pre-AMI days, and we didn't get anywhere. I don't see why it would be any different now. I'm just sayin'. </side point> The point you're raising - will a model with "extra features" work in a simulator that doesn't support those "extra features" - is valid, and even central to the discussion. Specifically with regard to Out/InOut parameters, Sigrity has consistently asserted that their current back-channel models have a "compatibility" mode that lets them work in simulators that don't support Sigrity's proposed back channel implementation. This is true. We've run these models in "compatibility" mode and they work. SiSoft has always assumed (but has perhaps not stated clearly enough) that Model_Specific/Info parameters would work without the need for a model "compatibility mode". I'll take RX_Noise as an example - let's assume that a particular "advanced model" has RX_Noise declared via a Model_Specific/Info parameter with a value of 1mV. There are three scenarios we see: 1. If the EDA tool understands RX_Noise, it reads it from the .ami file and uses it. Yes, the simulation results are different than if RX_Noise was 0, although not necessarily radically so. As Colin correctly pointed out - if the parameter makes no difference, why bother? 2. If the EDA tool does not understand RX_Noise, but has an equivalent simulator-specific noise feature, the model maker, EDA vendor or user can inspect the provided .ami file and ensure the EDA tools uses whatever simulator-specific setting is appropriate. As I've said before, better to publish data and its meaning (even if it's not part of the published standard) than to not publish data at all. 3. If the EDA tool does not understand RX_Noise and has no equivalent simulator-specific noise feature, then the data is simply ignored, and the simulator proceeds as it would have if the model had not included a RX_Noise parameter at all. Nothing wrong with that, in our opinion. Back-channel models require communication between the RX and TX, which is not provided in IBIS 5.0, so the models do require an explicit "compatibility mode" to ensure portability. Sigrity built that into their proposal from day one - they did the right thing for the right reasons. The point you're making, and it's an excellent one, is that a model can be portable and have advanced features. If I use the following scale (a mash-up of Scott's latest proposal and some of my additions): 0 - no portability / proprietary 1 - Model uses BIRDs approved and referred from macro committee to full forum / limited portability 2 - Model uses BIRDs approved by full forum / theoretical portability 3 - Model only uses current version of IBIS Specification / full portability Then the backchannel models Sigrity has proposed, and models that use RX_Noise from proposed BIRD 123 - would both have dual ratings: 0 and 3. That make sense? 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 From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike LaBonte Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 9:51 PM To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: IBIS-AMI Model Portability I think a more complete conversation about this topic would have to include discussion of compliant simulators as well as compliant models. This topic was triggered by a BIRD that would make some existing models non-compliant with the IBIS spec. But unless simulators are rewritten to suddenly refuse to use these models, which they were able to use just before the rewrite, the "non-compliant" models will still work. Am I missing something? Do any simulators today reject models that use Model_specific Out parameters? And if so would those simulators be compliant with IBIS 5.0? I know this discussion is about expectations of compliance in general, but it feels odd that it was triggered by models that are compliant ... so far. We left an opening in the IBIS 5.0 spec, some models used it, and now we are trying to close the opening. Has this been done before in IBIS? Mike On 4/29/11 5:44 PM, "colin_warwick@xxxxxxxxxxx" <colin_warwick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Understood, and I agree. So how about: Models are either: a) Compliant. Period. Or b) Non-compliant, advanced/experimental. Caveat emptor: this is a proprietary unique solution for a unique (set of) customer(s). It is up to that customer(s) to deal with whatever risk they wish to take with this non-compliant model. It has the following characteristics (for the interested reader only): "Here is my advanced/experimental model and I claim it runs correctly in the following (one or more) EDA tools: A, B, C, D. Here is my verification report for Tool A. Here is my verification report for Tool B. (etc.) It may or may not run in other tools but I haven't checked. Ask the vendor. Or make it worth my while and I'll check it for you. By the way, you might like to know that this model contains the following (one or more) BIRDS and/or proprietary extension. Here is the status of each one: Proprietary extension 1 or BIRD xyz one of: 0 - no BIRD or BIRD proposed and not yet approved by macro committee 1 - BIRD approved and referred from macro committee to full forum 2 - BIRD approved by full forum, not yet ratified, but will be in the next release of the standard Proprietary extension 2 or BIRD abc Etc. " From: Syed Huq (huqs) [mailto:huqs@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:43 PM To: WARWICK,COLIN (A-Americas,ex1); scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: IBIS-AMI Model Portability Hi Colin, I like things to be simple. Either it is Compliant or it is not. Example: If I want to buy a DDR3 or a PCI-E device, I want *all* features of the spec to be met by the Silicon. I don't use something that is half way there or something that does more than the spec but has shades of grey (unknown, uncorrelated, specs). On a system level implementation, it can create a lot of problems. Models should be treated the same. If a model is not compliant to the spec then there are no more grey shades to that model. It is a proprietary unique solution for a unique customer. It is up to that customer to deal with whatever risk they wish to take with this non-compliant model. A BIRD that is not approved is not a Spec. Tks Syed From: colin_warwick@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:colin_warwick@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 11:43 AM To: Syed Huq (huqs); scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: IBIS-AMI Model Portability Hi Syed, Hmmm. you have a good point. So how about this: Models are either: c) Compliant. Period. Or d) Advanced/experimental, with the following characteristics (for the interested reader only): "Here is my advanced/experimental model and I claim it runs correctly in the following (one or more) EDA tools: A, B, C, D. Here is my verification report for Tool A. Here is my verification report for Tool B. (etc.) It may or may not run in other tools but I haven't checked. Ask the vendor. Or make it worth my while and I'll check it for you. By the way, you might like to know that this model contains the following (one or more) BIRDS and/or proprietary extension. Here is the status of each one: Proprietary extension 1 or BIRD xyz one of: 0 - no portability: no BIRD or BIRD proposed and not yet approved by macro committee 1 - BIRD approved and referred from macro committee to full forum 2 - BIRD approved by full forum Proprietary extension 2 or BIRD abc Etc. " For models users that absolutely positivity need portability they could stop reading at the label "advanced/experimental." Brave souls who need advanced features yesterday could read on into the gory details. Thoughts? -- Colin From: Syed Huq (huqs) [mailto:huqs@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 2:13 PM To: WARWICK,COLIN (A-Americas,ex1); scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: IBIS-AMI Model Portability This can be a night mare of a solution for the end users. Now I have to track which model is rated what (0, 1, 2, 3) and could *possibly*work on which tool (A, B, C, D etc). So now I have to have all versions of EDA tool out there so I can make use of these new rated model ? Is that a solution ? Not at all. -Syed From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of colin_warwick@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 10:39 AM To: scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: IBIS-AMI Model Portability Hi Scott, I like this because it's crisp. We could combine the suggestions: "Here is my model and I claim it runs correctly in the following (one or more) EDA tools: A, B, C, D. Here is my verification report for Tool A. Here is my verification report for Tool B. (etc.) It may or may not run in other tools but I haven't checked. Ask the vendor. Or make it worth my while and I'll check it for you. By the way, you might like to know that this model contains the following (zero or more) BIRDS and/or proprietary extension. Here is the status of each one: Proprietary extension 1 or BIRD xyz one of: 0 - no portability: no BIRD or BIRD proposed and not yet approved by macro committee 1 - BIRD approved and referred from macro committee to full forum 2 - BIRD approved by full forum 3 - BIRD integrated into next version of IBIS specification Proprietary extension 2 or BIRD abc Etc. " -- Colin From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott McMorrow Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 11:44 AM To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: IBIS-AMI Model Portability Todd I'd use the following rating 0 - no portability 1 - BIRD approved and referred from macro committee to full forum 2 - BIRD approved by full forum 3 - BIRD integrated into next version of IBIS specification There is too much uncertainty in what happens when a BIRD proposal is initially introduced. At that point I'd say there is no portability. Usage of the feature is still proprietary Portability is only a possibility when more than one EDA vendor is willing to commit software engineering resources to add the feature. It's unlikely that this would occur prior to macro committee approval. Scott 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 TeraspeedR is the registered service mark of Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC On 4/29/2011 10:56 AM, Todd Westerhoff wrote: Colin, Thanks for your thoughts on the subject. I've been pondering the subject as well and have something I'd like to propose for discussion. Isn't the main issue here one of model portability between different EDA tools? In particular, the ability of model makers, EDA vendors & end-users to understand the likelihood that a particular IBIS-AMI model will run in a particular EDA tool? It seems to be that "Compliant" is a really broad term that can encompass everything from whether a model's simulated output fits within a protocol's allowed jitter spec to whether the model uses an agreed upon convention for documenting the analysis modes the model supports. We need to care about all those things, but I'd like to start with a way to assert whether a particular model will run in a particular tool or not. If I use a singular term (like Compliant or Compliant By Any Other Name), the world is black and white - the model's either Compliant or it isn't. That would work In a perfect world, but in practice, models come in black, white and shades of grey. For sake of argument, I'll propose a portability scale where 3 is the best (white), and 0 is the worst (black). Let's assume the scale means the following: ` 0 (black) - The model has no portability. It's either completely proprietary or uses features that haven't been publicly defined, such that there's no chance of running it in multiple tools. The model has limited portability. It uses features that have been proposed for standardization, but that have not been approved yet. One or more EDA tools may support it, but both the model and the EDA tools that support it may need to change as the standard evolves. The model has theoretical portability. It uses a combination of features that are part of the published standard and features that have been approved for inclusion in future versions of the standard. There's a chance that those new features will get changed as they get incorporated into an updated standard, but the risk is considered low. The model and EDA tools that support it may need to change to support future versions of the standard, but probably not. 3 (white) - The model is completely portable. It uses only features that are part of the published standard, and if it doesn't work in a given EDA tool, it's most likely the EDA vendor's problem. Would a rating scheme like that help? It seems to me the issue we're grappling with is not black and white compliance, but risk assessment in a practical sense. I'm happy to discuss any variation on this theme that we can all agree on. What do you think? 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 <http://www.sisoft.com> From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of colin_warwick@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:43 AM To: Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ibis@xxxxxxx Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Minutes from the 26 Apr 2011 ibis-atm meeting Proposed Hi All, It seems to me that the purpose of a standard is to promote the creation of portable models. Why go to all the trouble of a long series of tense committee meetings between competitors otherwise? Portability comes at a price and that price is that it takes longer to incorporate innovation. The definition of a portable model isn't just that it is syntactically compliant with the standard, it must also be semantically compliant in that it should give the same answer (within some acceptable accuracy) on all compliant simulators. If an model contains proprietary extensions it is, by this definition, non-compliant because it is deliberately engineered to give a radically different answer (when run on a simulator with the matching proprietary capability) than a model without the extension. Why bother adding the extension otherwise? Sure, the model might run in a simulator without the matching proprietary capability, but clearly it will then give the wrong answer, which is worse than not running at all. It doesn't matter whether the proprietary extensions are documented or undocumented by the originator, nor whether they are proposed as a BIRD or not, nor whether they have technical flaws or not: they are still outside of the ratified standard, therefore controlled only by the author (who could change it at will to match their latest simulator release), and therefore models that use it are de facto non-portable. I have no objections to proprietary extensions. They have the advantage that innovation can be included quickly, but the disadvantage is that models that include them are non-portable. So my point (and I do have one) is that models with proprietary extensions should not be labeled "compliant." That label should be reserved for portable models that are both syntactically and semantically compliant with the ratified standard of the time. My $0.02 -- Colin This is a retitled thread, the rest of the original thread has been removed to reduce bandwidth on the reflector . <snip>