[ibis-macro] Re: My summary comments on Interconnect Modeling, LTI and flexiobility
- From: "Walter Katz" <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "IBIS-ATM" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:36:15 -0400
All,
I have seen no serious argument why LTI is not a valid assumption for
Interconnect today or in the foreseeable future.
Unlike silicon, interconnect modeling has been incredibly stable for the
last two decades, and yes interconnect modeling has been done at speeds over
7Gig for a long time in the communications industry. I do not believe that
anybody seriously claims the need for non-LTI models for simulation.
There is clearly a need for interconnect solution space exploration along
the lines of what was implemented for AMI parameters.
Now consider the advantages of netlist of blocks, each block represented by
one of a short list of models we all know and understand. A netlist that
each EDA vendor understands can be simply translated into his own
simulators.
Now consider timely (desperate?) need for package and connector manufactures
to be able to deliver accurate models. And consider the need that system
developers have in reliably designing next generation high-speed systems.
I would hope we can put this LTI discussion to rest, and start focusing on
decisions like the required set of modeling blocks, the format of the subckt
netlisting format, ...
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:59 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Question on seeting the EMD direction
Let's put aside time constants, mechanical or cross talk
effects. My goal is to get a consensus on whether it is
safe to assume LTI for a new interconnect language (or
specification) we are just starting to develop for the
present day and future designs. I simply do not want it
to be obsolete by the time it is finished, or I do not
want to have to develop one specification after the other
because by the time one is done, another one is needed
because the one we just finished is not flexible enough
to take on some badly needed features.
I do not want to repeat history. To me it is quite
embarrassing that we spent 7 or so years on something
like ICM, or 3-4 years on something like the IBIS-AMS
extensions, etc... to find out that people are not
interested in using them for various reasons.
Lastly, regarding the old saying about user interfaces
(on the bottom of this message). I am a little
surprised to hear this quote from someone who favors
the C language for AMI modeling over other, somewhat
simpler, but limiting languages, such as VHDL-AMS,
Verilog-A(MS), Matlab, and the like... After all, C
is a "...language which is capable of expressing any
engineering problem..." isn't it? Either way, my
goal is not necessarily to achieve a language that is
capable of expressing ANY ENGINEERING problem, I just
want to propose a modeling language that is flexible
and expandable enough so that it doesn't paint itself
into the corner by the time it is released...
Comments?
Arpad
========================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unsubscribe
Other related posts:
- » [ibis-macro] Re: My summary comments on Interconnect Modeling, LTI and flexiobility
