[ibis-macro] Minutes from the 23 Sep 2014 ibis-atm meeting
- From: Mike LaBonte <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: 'IBIS-ATM' <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:30:45 -0400
Minutes from the 23 Sep 2014 ibis-atm meeting are attached.
Mike
IBIS Macromodel Task Group
Meeting date: 23 September 2014
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
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
* Bob Ross
(Note: Agilent has changed to Keysight)
The meeting was led by Arpad Muranyi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opens:
- None
--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:
- None
-------------
Review of ARs:
- Ambrish send updated BIRD 147 draft to Mike for posting.
- Done
- Todd produce slides for co-optimization requirements discussion next week.
- Not done.
- Todd send BIRD 147 notes to Ambrish.
- Done
- Arpad to review IBIS spec for min max issues.
- In progress.
-------------
New Discussion:
BIRD 147.1:
- Todd: SiSoft sees two optimization needs:
- 1: Emulating what hardware back-channel does.
- 2: Finding optimal settings for hardware without back-channel capability.
- This is not hardware emulation.
- Arpad: In the second case the tool is doing the user's job?
- Todd explained the two needs again.
- Walter: The RX can give the TX settings directly, without iterating.
- Todd: Most adaptation complexity is in the RX.
- Some people turn off TX EQ and let the RX do it all.
- That doesn't work well.
- The point is that if all TXs are nearly the same, we can have smart RXs
sending generic "prescriptions" to the TXs.
- Arpad: We have to decide whether to recommend this BIRD for a vote.
- Ambrish: Do we want to emulate the hardware protocol?
- Walter: The TX and RX have to communicate their capabilities.
- Arpad: We should not care if the hardware has the capabilities the model has.
- Walter: A model might communicate settings in a way that is not approved.
- This BIRD can't communicate tap indexes.
- You can't have "ibis_" in the name unless it matches an approved protocol.
- Todd: Cadence changed the BIRD to allow both index and coefficients.
- Walter: I don't want top be prevented from finding another way.
- I sent an example which was deemed not approved.
- Todd: The goal is to determine how to configure the TX and RX, and the margin.
- We emulate the path only because it might go astray.
- Ambrish: It might not converge.
- Todd: Taps have not only ranges, but also granularity.
- John: Co-optimization might require just getting the TX and RX talking,
without a protocol.
- Arpad: Can BIRD 147 be modified to satisfy SiSoft?
- If not we might recommending rejecting it.
- Walter: BIRD 147 would be acceptable if:
- 1: both Init and GetWave allow optimization.
- 2: There is a way to have models approved as standard.
- Todd: We are fairly close.
- Ambrish: The BIRD can cover any protocol.
- Arpad: Do Todd's comments to Ambrish resolve anything?
- Todd: They were about style and clarification.
- We are requesting another training modes.
- Ambrish: You can do that.
- Todd: Training says what you are doing, but also what the model can do.
- The model can initialize in Init and continue in GetWave?
- Ambrish: Yes.
- Todd: When we call GetWave we will have to change values and the model must
recognize that.
- There is no way to know the model can't do that.
- Walter: Is it a List or a Value?
- Todd: It's a List
- Walter: We need to handle this in one simulation.
- Ambrish: Yes that can be supported.
- Walter: There are words saying what can be approved by IBIS.
- Todd: Cadence will stand by this interpretation?
- Ambrish: If SiSoft wants to run Init then GetWave there is nothing illegal
about that.
- Todd: The next question is what's allowed in approved BCI messages.
- What would be an example?
- Walter: A TX transmitting min and max taps, index values, and tap
coefficients for the Init response.
- Todd: You want both the mapping and current state?
- Can we define things beyond a tap list in a BCI file?
- We might have a "framis", a List of 3 floating point numbers.
- Can I write a BCI file that will be approved?
- Ambrish: Yes
- Protocol_Specific can have any parameter.
- Walter: I will write an example BCI file for the task group to check.
- Radek: I would prefer to have increment/decrement in the BCI file, not
Training_Parameter.
- Ambrish: That needs to be in the specification.
- Walter: An RX model can have 2 protocols?
- Ambrish: Correct.
- Walter: One protocol will have increments, the other coefficients.
- How will it know?
- Ambrish: That will require two files.
- Walter: I need models that do training first in Init, then in GetWave.
- How to I tell the model I want to train in GetWave?
- Todd: AMI_parameters_out becomes an In.
- Walter: Do the parameters sent to Init get sent to GetWave AMI_parameters_out?
-------------
IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:
1) Simulator directives
Other related posts:
- » [ibis-macro] Minutes from the 23 Sep 2014 ibis-atm meeting - Mike LaBonte
