[ibis-macro] Re: IBIS-AMI RX model
- From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:46:16 -0700
Resend...
Arpad
=========
From: Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 1:33 AM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: IBIS-AMI RX model
Todd,
I see a difference between calling the AMI specification infant,
and being able to use what works in it successfully. I will give
you just one example (from the many possible candidates) to
illustrate this.
The spec lists a few reserved parameters starting on pg. 144.
Several of these can be (Usage Info) and (Usage Out). But we
have two AMI_parameters_out argument, one for the AMI_Init and
another for the AMI_GetWave function. The description of these
parameters do not mention which of these arguments will return
these parameters. We can only guess. True, based on the meaning
of these parameters we can formulate an "educated guess", but
that doesn't change the fact that it is only a guess. If we are
lucky and guessed correctly, the simulation will do miracles.
In that case you might claim that the model (spec?) was "ready for
production work" because the user of the model was able to finish
his/her job. But in my opinion this doesn't mean that the
specification is mature. We were probably all walking on
eggshells and crossing our fingers while this poor customer was
doing his/her job because we weren't sure whether we guessed it
right...
Regarding the model you need to ship, go ahead and do it with
the features described in the "Opal BIRDs". But the reason I would
prefer if these types of models wouldn't be called IBIS compliant
(even if they pass the parser) is because their advanced capabilities
are not in the spec yet, and those features which rely on the
capabilities of the specification usually do not sufficiently
model everything that the user of the model would need to get
their job done right. In other words, if the user can only get
their job done right if they are able to use of the non-compliant
features of the model, for all practical purposes such a model
is not compliant in reality.
Arpad
======================================================================
From: Todd Westerhoff [mailto:twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 9:43 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: IBIS-AMI RX model
Arpad,
I'm not looking to argue - I'm asking for guidance. I have a real
problem to solve and I'm trying to do it in a way that creates the least
controversy.
When you say that AMI "is in its infancy and barely able to walk on
crutches", are you suggesting that AMI models and simulators aren't
ready for production work? I hope not, for everyone's sake.
"Innovation" is admittedly an abstract term, and the Tuesday group
didn't seem to like it. I thought about it, and decided that it would
be helpful to make the problem to be solved more tangible.
So I did. The problem is - we have a model to ship in the next few days
that needs functionality described in BIRDs 121-124 to meet the
customer's demand for functionality and the vendor's demand for a single
set of model files.
The question remains - what do you suggest we do?
Thanks,
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
Other related posts:
