[ibis-macro] Minutes from the 02 Jul 2013 ibis-atm meeting

  • From: Mike LaBonte <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:16:58 -0400

Minutes from the 02 Jul 2013 ibis-atm meeting are attached.

Mike
IBIS Macromodel Task Group

Meeting date: 02 July 2013

Members (asterisk for those attending):
Agilent:                    * Fangyi Rao
                            * Radek Biernacki
Altera:                     * David Banas
                              Julia Liu
                              Hazlina Ramly
Andrew Joy Consulting:        Andy Joy
ANSYS:                        Samuel Mertens
                            * Dan Dvorscak
                            * Curtis Clark
                              Steve Pytel
                              Luis Armenta
Arrow Electronics:            Ian Dodd
Cadence Design Systems:       Terry Jernberg
                            * Ambrish Varma
                              Feras Al-Hawari
                              Brad Brim
                              Kumar Keshavan
                              Ken Willis
Cavium Networks:              Johann Nittmann
Celsionix:                    Kellee Crisafulli
Cisco Systems:                Ashwin Vasudevan
                              Syed Huq
Ericsson:                     Anders Ekholm
IBM:                          Greg Edlund
Intel:                        Michael Mirmak
Maxim Integrated Products:    Mahbubul Bari
                              Hassan Rafat
                              Ron Olisar
Mentor Graphics:              John Angulo
                              Zhen Mu
                            * Arpad Muranyi
                              Vladimir Dmitriev-Zdorov
Micron Technology:            Randy Wolff
                              Justin Butterfield
NetLogic Microsystems:        Ryan Couts
Nokia-Siemens Networks:       Eckhard Lenski
QLogic Corp.                  James Zhou
SiSoft:                     * Walter Katz
                            * Todd Westerhoff
                              Doug Burns
                            * Mike LaBonte
Snowbush IP:                  Marcus Van Ierssel
ST Micro:                     Syed Sadeghi
Teraspeed Consulting Group:   Scott McMorrow
                            * Bob Ross
TI:                           Casey Morrison
                              Alfred Chong
Vitesse Semiconductor:        Eric Sweetman
Xilinx:                       Mustansir Fanaswalla
                              Ray Anderson

The meeting was led by Arpad Muranyi

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opens:

- Arpad: We can discuss the planned agenda items in any order.

--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:

- None

-------------
Review of ARs:

- Fangyi to add Tx_DCD example to BIRD 155

-------------
New Discussion:

Interconnect update:
- Walter: meeting tomorrow will discuss new Si2 release.
  - Will be in editorial mode after that.

BIRD 155 New AMI API to AMI_Resolve Dependent Model Parameter:
- Arpad showed the updated BIRD 155.
- Fangyi: Tx_DCD depends on Tx_V and data rate.
  - This example of AMI_Resolve was added.
- Ambrish: This looks good.
- Walter: Another parameter might help.
- Ambrish: Some parameters will appear twice.
- Radek: Not sure if the parameter descriptions should be repeated.
- Todd: AMI_Resolve outputs can't be passed back to AMI_Init?
  - Then only analog models and jitter budgets can be resolved.
- Fangyi: Those are the only places AMI_Resolve is needed.

- Todd: Tx_DCD is handled by AMI_Init, how does that work?
- Walter: That one is a poor example, it is Info only.
- Fangyi: AMI_Resolve would only be needed for analog.
- Walter: Rx_Receiver_Sensitivity would be a good example.
- Radek: Also there could be future parameters.
  - For example Tstonefile.
- Fangyi: The Usage Dep is to prevent both AMI_Resolve and AMI_Init from 
updating it.
- Radek: The current Out parameters would be split into Out and Dep
- Ambrish: What about jitter?
- Fangyi: Info parameters are only read by the EDA tool.

- Walter: Rx_Receiver_Sensitivity is InOut.
  - Can it be Dep?
  - IBM has a bunch of Info parameters, for example.
  - There are a number of dependencies.
- Fangyi: It should be Out, and AMI_Init should resolve it.
- Walter: They have one DLL for a whole range of models.
  - It is controlled by configuration settings.
  - With this proposal they would have to generate new DLLs.
- Fangyi: Model_Specific In String parameters can configure the DLL.
  - It could be a configuration file name.
- Walter: The jitter parameters are Info so the simulator could not change them.
- Fangyi: That is a separate problem.
- Ambrish: Why are the AMI_Resolve parameters not in Reserved_Parameter or 
Model_Specific?
- Bob: Any Out parameter could be a Dep.
- Radek: Not simultaneously.
- Ambrish: Any Info parameter should also be Dep?
- Radek: It could be, not should be.
- Todd: Dep is input to AMI_Resolve?
- Fangyi: No, Dep is the output of AMI_Resolve.
  - All In and InOut parameters are sent to AMI_Resolve.
- Walter: And anything needed for AMI_Resolve also goes to AMI_Init.
  - We are having trouble with overloading.
  - I have a presentation about this.
- Todd: In the Tstonefile example the DLL knows which s4p to pass back?
  - The Dep parameters are to be treated by the EDA tool as Info.
- Radek: Maybe there should be In parameters for this too.
- David: What if the DLL returns non-sense?
- Fangyi: The tool has to check.
- Arpad: The DLL could store the names internally without be given the list.
- David: Part of the reason for this is IP protection.
  - Giving the qualifiers in advance takes that away.
- Fangyi: It is just an example.

AR: Fangyi send BIRD 155 update to Mike for posting

- Arpad showed an email from Walter.
- Walter: I propose a Dependency_Usage leaf with values In or Out.
- Walter explained the flow.
  - AMI_Resolve_Close would be called.
- David: Why is that necessary?
- Walter: To free memory.
- Radek: Fangyi brought that up last week.
- Walter: This would make the inputs and outputs explicit.
- Radek: There would have to be rules about name collisions.
- Walter: But now AMI_Init has an input it normally doesn't need.

- Arpad showed an email from Fangyi.
- Fangyi: It says Usage Out can't be dependent.
  - My concern is about InOut.
- Radek: The information is sent to the EDA tool but will be modified later.
- Walter: For example a tap coefficient might be determined by AMI_Resolve.
  - In PCIgen 3 & 4 the DFE will optimize taps then report what it did.
- Fangyi: This is just for the analog channel.
- Walter: There may be other purposes, we should not limit ourselves.
- Ambrish: Why does there need to be Out parameters?
- Walter: In BIRD 160 we have a parameter passed in, nothing says it can't be 
Usage Out.
  - All an EDA tool can do with Model_Specific Out parameters is report their 
values.
- Radek: AMI_Resolve is almost at the same stage as AMI_Init.
- Arpad: BIRD 160 limits to In or Info.
- Fangyi: I see nothing that our proposal will not address.
- Walter: I see nothing that my proposal will not address.
- Ambrish: Dependency Usage is cleaner.
- Walter: Also a Dep can not by output by AMI_Init.
  - My proposal gives flexibility to IC vendors with no cost to EDA vendors.
- Ambrish: It's complex.
- Fangyi: It's not logical.
- Walter: AMI_Init has information AMI_Resolve does not, like the impulse 
response.
- Ambrish: Information can already be displayed to the user.
- Walter: Not if it's a Dep.
- Fangyi: Jitter parameters can be modified later.
- Walter: They can't, they are Info.
- Ambrish: That could be allowed.
- Walter: We would have to say which Info parameters could be Dep.

-------------
Next meeting: 09 July 2013 12:00pm PT

-------------
IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:

1) Simulator directives

Other related posts:

  • » [ibis-macro] Minutes from the 02 Jul 2013 ibis-atm meeting - Mike LaBonte