[ibis-macro] Re: Package and on-die modeling
- From: Gregory R Edlund <gedlund@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:51:19 -0500
Walter,
This seems like a reasonable, incremental approach to me -- one that would
be consistent with Michael Mirmak's presentation at DesignCon on the topic
of a regular release schedule. I do think we can tackle IBIS 6.0 in a six
month period if we quickly converge on an approach. We may need some
additional break-out calls. Would a face-to-face meeting help get the
effort off the ground? It's about time for the famous Boston fall colors.
For that matter, Minnesota is a central location, and we probably have
another month until the first blizzard hits! 8-)
Greg Edlund
Senior Engineer
Signal Integrity and System Timing
IBM Systems & Technology Group
3605 Hwy. 52 N Bldg 050-3
Rochester, MN 55901
From: "Walter Katz" <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "IBIS-ATM" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 09/05/2012 02:11 PM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Package and on-die modeling
Sent by: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
All,
I would like to propose the following specific package and on-die modeling
plan:
IBIS 6.0
Support only On-Die Tstonefile (s2p and s4p) interconnect models
using the [Model] sub parameters [Tstonefile] and [Tstonefile Ports].
Support package IBIS-ISS subckts as a .ipkg file which would be in
Parameter Tree format.
IBIS 7.0
Support On-Die IBIS-ISS subckts as a .idie file, similar to the .ipkg
file but between pads and buffers instead of between pins and pads.
IBIS 7.0
Create a new EMD standard
IBIS 8.0
Create a new IBISx format (.ibsx) which is .ibs in Parameter Tree
format
I would defer any work on IBIS-BSS until IC Vendors make a specific request
for such functionality. Again, we need to be driven by IC Vendors desire
and ability to supply buffer models in such a modified SPICE syntax. I
point out that IBIS-AMI modeling was driven by two IC Vendors.
I make the recommendation for IBIS 6.0 because IC Vendors are only
delivering On-Die Tstonefile (s2p and s4p) interconnect models today. We
should not create an On-Die IBIS-ISS standard until we get definitive
requirements from IC Vendors. We now know the requirements for On-Die
Tstonefile (s2p and s4p). If IC Vendors do give compelling reasons to
implement On-Die IBIS-ISS subckts we can consider moving the implementation
to IBIS 6.0, since much of the basic work will be done in the
implementation of package IBIS-ISS subckts as a .ipkg file.
I recommend doing the IBIS-ISS package model in .ipkg Parameter Tree format
because
1. It is easily to parse
2. It is easily extensible
3. It satisfies all known requirements for package models
currently being delivered
4. It will slide into the new EMD standard with minimal effort
Most of the issues raise about my presentation Tuesday were on EMD
and .ibsx, since these are deferred, and once I have implemented examples
with additions IC Vendor supplied package models the syntax of the .ipkg
file can refined and ready to be reviewed in detail and documented in a
BIRD.
Walter
Walter Katz
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone 303.449-2308
Mobile 303.335-6156
Other related posts:
