[ibis-macro] Minutes from the 3 Feb 2015 ibis-atm meeting
- From: Mike LaBonte <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: 'IBIS-ATM' <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 20:13:49 -0500
Minutes from the 3 Feb 2015 ibis-atm meeting are attached.
Mike
IBIS Macromodel Task Group
Meeting date: 03 February 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: We need to speed up work on an actual BIRD.
--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:
- None
-------------
Review of ARs:
- Arpad to review IBIS spec for min max issues.
- In progress.
-------------
New Discussion:
DesignCon Summit Review:
- Walter: Todd gave the same presentation as the last ATM meeting.
- Ken Willis gave the Cadence presentation.
- There was push-back from Cadence on including scenario 3 in BIRD 147.
- They have models out there now.
- One objection was the stimulus pattern features in the BIRD.
- Ken seemed to be OK with dropping that.
- I plan to rework BIRD 147 and share with Cadence.
- Michael M: There was good agreement on some points.
- Rita Horner raised concerns about structure.
- Walter: It's the difference between 802.3 and PCIe3g.
- In 802.3 training happens at the PHY level.
- In PCIeg3 the MAC does training, a level above the PHY, an outlier.
- There can be cases where the PHY and MAC come from different vendors.
- Todd: The MAC would be looking at eye quality.
- Ambrish: The MAC is a hardware layer?
- Todd: Two pieces of IP work together to send commands to the TX.
- Walter: The MAC may be software too.
- Todd: At the near end of the network the packets could come from either
entity.
- For simulation this may not matter.
- For plug and play operation it may matter.
- Ambrish: Is the MAC another model?
- Todd: The RX has to produce something for the TX exploration algorithm to
look at.
- Fangyi: Is the MAC standardized?
- Walter: It can be proprietary.
- Fangyi: It is another black box we need to add?
- Michael M: The issue is that parts of this might come from separate companies.
- Michael M: Is it possible for both sides of the IP to interpret the data
differently.
- We can't see who is listening to the backchannel.
- Walter: This is a PIPE.
- Only the MAC talks to the TX.
- Todd: ... If we define things correctly.
- Walter: We need to talk to the people who generate these.
- Todd: Cadence agreed with scenarios 1 & 2
- They would prefer to put off scenario 3.
- This is scenario 4 which we need to understand.
- SiSoft and Cadence need to find an approach we can sign off on.
- Arpad; David Banas requested support for legacy models.
- Radek: There is no difference between 2 & 3.
- Ambrish: They are different.
- In 2 the intelligence is in the AMI model,not the EDA tool.
- Walter: Scenario 1 is GetWave and 2 is Init.
- Cadence and SiSoft agree both are needed.
- Arpad: Did David comment on this?
- Walter: IBIS is a container of data, not how tools operate.
- Nothing prevents a tool from doing 3.
- Arpad: For 3 we need a model interface.
- Radek: Something has to happen to enable it.
- Walter: Agree.
- Agree with Cadence too.
- An independent BIRD can be worked on in parallel.
- Arpad: When will the BIRD 147 rework be ready?
- Walter: I will be on vacation for 2 weeks.
- Arpad: We should discuss C_comp next week.
- Randy: I have nothing new, but could work with Walter.
- Michael M: We could go over the summit presentations.
- It might tie into Bob's K-table presentation.
- Bob:We should not resurrect BIRD 79
- IBIS-ISS gives us a general solution.
- Randy: We need more detail on series elements.
- Arpad: We should discuss redriver flow.
- Walter: I gave all-Init and all-GetWave flows.
- Everything else is up for grabs.
- Michael M: Is this in addition to BIRD 166?
- Walter: It was an email.
- Fangyi: We need to consider crosstalk and multiple redrivers.
- Arpad: I could prepare something on min/max issues.
- Michael M: I can propose some reserved parameters.
- Michael M: Should we invite Rita Horner to talk about layers?
- We should make sure our solution meets criteria.
- Walter: She could join the Open Forum meeting Friday.
- Walter: There might have been at least 20 papers involving IBIS-AMI at
DesignCon.
- Some were about PAM4.
- Some were using flows other than the reference flows.
- Todd: Xilinx compared 6 EDA simulators.
- It was unknown which were correct.
- Michael M: The impulse response difference was interesting.
- Ambrish: Were there many attendees?
- Michael M: There may have been slightly fewer than last year.
- Arpad: Do we have any options for multi-level signaling?
- Walter: I had proposed a simple "this is PAM4" keyword.
- The RX needs to report 3 signals and clock skew.
- Fangyi and I have agreed on this.
- Arpad: Can it use legacy IBIS?
- Fangyi: Some IC vendors see no urgent need to change the legacy IBIS language.
- That is not formal.
- Arpad: It might be handled algorithmically.
- Fangyi: Did Walter mention something about the RX returning slicer info?
- Walter: I did not. We need to resolve that.
- Ambrish: We would like to be involved.
-------------
Next meeting: 10 Feb 2015 12:00pm PT
-------------
IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:
1) Simulator directives
Other related posts:
- » [ibis-macro] Minutes from the 3 Feb 2015 ibis-atm meeting - Mike LaBonte
