[ibis-macro] Minutes from the 20 Jan 2015 ibis-atm meeting
- From: Mike LaBonte <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: 'IBIS-ATM' <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:02:10 -0500
Minutes from the 20 Jan 2015 ibis-atm meeting are attached.
Mike
IBIS Macromodel Task Group
Meeting date: 20 January 2015
Members (asterisk for those attending):
Altera: * David Banas
ANSYS: * Dan Dvorscak
* Curtis Clark
Avago (LSI) Xingdong Dai
Cadence Design Systems: * Ambrish Varma
Brad Brim
Kumar Keshavan
Ken Willis
Ericsson: Anders Ekholm
IBM Steve Parker
Intel: * Michael Mirmak
Keysight Technologies: * Fangyi Rao
* Radek Biernacki
Maxim Integrated Products: Hassan Rafat
Mentor Graphics: * John Angulo
* Arpad Muranyi
Micron Technology: * Randy Wolff
Justin Butterfield
QLogic Corp. James Zhou
Andy Joy
eASIC Marc Kowalski
SiSoft: * Walter Katz
* Todd Westerhoff
* Mike LaBonte
Synopsys Rita Horner
Teraspeed Consulting Group: Scott McMorrow
Teraspeed Labs: * Bob Ross
(Note: Agilent has changed to Keysight)
The meeting was led by Arpad Muranyi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opens:
- Arpad: Hoping Michael Mirmak will be able to give the ATM summit presentation.
- I will not be there.
--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:
- None
-------------
Review of ARs:
- Arpad to review IBIS spec for min max issues.
- In progress.
-------------
New Discussion:
Co-optimization:
- Todd showed IBIS-AMI and Co-Optimization.
- Todd: I'll just explain the changed slides.
- slide 5:
- Todd: This describes all 3 scenarios on one slide.
- Ambrish: No simulator involvement except messaging for 1 and 2?
- Todd: Correct, but the simulator has to know when training ends.
- Ambrish: It is the same for 1 and 2.
- Todd: 1 and 2 are functionally the same.
- Arpad: There may be a big difference in what is simulated.
- Todd: But 1 and 2 use the same plumbing.
- Ambrish: Should it be 1a and 1b?
- Todd: I have no preference.
- Mike: 1 and 2 differ regarding GetWave and Init.
- Walter: We are mixing functional and user requirements.
- One BIRD can be agnostic whether we are doing 1 or 2.
- Todd: We should move on and come back to this.
- slide 6:
- Todd: The point about local and global optima has been removed.
- slide 7:
- Todd: Need to be clear it has to support industry protocols.
- slide 10:
- Todd: Calling this Simulator Based Co-Optimization now.
- Important to note that meta-data must be supplied.
- slide 17:
- Todd: An algorithm outside the RX knows how to explore TX settings.
- The blue boxes around things are gone.
- Those functions have to exist but we don't care how and where.
- slide 19:
- Todd: Scenario 3 has different combinations of models that don't know how
to communicate optimization
- slide 20:
- Todd: In 3a The RX thinks it is participating.
- The simulator is taking over for the TX, communicating with the RX.
- The meta-data helps the simulator do that.
- slide 21:
- Todd: In 3b The TX is participating , simulator takes over for RX.
- slide 22:
- Todd: In 3c The simulator takes over for both.
- Todd: I propose presenting these slides at the summit.
- slide 21:
- Fangyi: Please explain the 3 levels.
- Todd explained the Simulate, Self-Optimize, and Co-Optimize functions.
- Slide 15 explains the case where models do not change settings during
simulation.
- In slide 16 the RX changes its settings automatically.
- Fangyi: We support that today.
- The blue box shows what is in the RX, right?
- Note the TX can also do self-optimization.
- Todd: On slide 18 we have the co-optimization function added in.
- The 3 bands show that these functions must exist no matter where they are.
- Fangyi: There may be too many colors here.
- slide 20:
- Fangyi: Yellow color should be used for the parts that the simulator does.
- Radek: It would be good to have the requirements listed independent of
scenarios.
- There may be 10 to 20 requirements.
- The scenarios are affected by what the models have.
- Todd: We may start looping back on ourselves.
- Arpad: Could we add slides for what our meeting goals are?
- You were hoping for consensus by the time of the summit.
- We may want feedback on this at the summit.
- Todd: We do want that.
- Ambrish: Are these requirements presented as what we agree to?
- We may not agree on scenario 3, it can wait.
- What do we expect of the audience?
- Walter: The TX configurator is a requirement from David Banas.
- Radek asked for the EDA tool to participate in co-optimization.
- Who does not support scenario 3c?
- Ambrish: We believe that can wait.
- David: If and RX and EDA tool can do this, the pressure is put on the TX to
support it.
- A legacy TX model should not obstruct the process.
- Todd: This suggests 3b is important.
- Arpad: If we do 3a, 3b and 3c fall out of it.
- Radek: Agree.
- Ambrish: Can we have a debate that this is not as important?
- Arpad: We seem to have support for scenario 3 now.
- Ambrish: Six months ago we had support for a proposal without this.
- Walter motioned to vote on supporting 3a, 3b, and 3c.
- SiSoft would propose a BIRD if it passes.
- Todd: We should bring this to a wider audience at the summit first.
- Arpad: Is the BIRD for all scenarios?
- Walter: Yes, all requirements in this presentation.
- Arpad: Feedback from the audience would be best.
- Walter: Objection: we have the right to propose what we want.
- Arpad: The question is if we are asking the audience for agreement.
- Walter: Ambrish has complained about this process.
- Ambrish: I'm not complaining.
- Todd: This formulation is two weeks old.
- We need to reduce acrimony.
- This could be a status report or it could be a request for input.
- Arpad: We have the right to put what we want in a spec, but we need to
solicit feedback to make sure it is useful to the industry.
- Todd: Agree. If they want it, the need is validated.
- Arpad: Could we have a slide asking for feedback?
- Todd: Yes.
- We debate here because we are authorized.
- It will have more meaning if we bring it to a wider audience.
- If they don't care about it, that is useful input.
- The first slide can say where we are in the process.
- The last slide can be a call for feedback.
- Bob: The presentation should be submitted by tomorrow.
- Bob: We can vote after DesignCon.
- Walter withdrew his motion.
- Arpad: There is no need to post this presentation to the ATM archive, it will
be posted for the summit.
-------------
Next meeting: 03 Feb 2015 12:00pm PT
-------------
IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:
1) Simulator directives
Other related posts:
- » [ibis-macro] Minutes from the 20 Jan 2015 ibis-atm meeting - Mike LaBonte
