[ibis-macro] Re: Samples per bit for AMI

  • From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:54:40 +0000

Kumar,

Regarding: "It does not make any sense for the eda tool to be doing the
part of the models job.", I don't think this is what I am suggesting.
In the computer world there is no such thing as continuous waveform.
Everything is sampled, digitized.  I don't see how we can go without
knowing how things are digitized.

Thanks,

Arpad
=========================================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of ckumar
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:25 AM
To: twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Samples per bit for AMI

I do not agree. Resampling may part of a adc(analog to digital conversion)
which may be more or less complex. The key part is that the model should
treat the incoming waveform as an analog/continuous waveform and take it
from there. It does not make any sense for the eda tool to be doing the
part of the models job.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:10:46 -0400 (EDT), "Todd Westerhoff"
<twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm with Arpad on this (which should surprise no one).
> 
>  
> 
> This is a practical issue - there are models out there with undocumented
> requirements (e.g. samples per bit) and this is a standardized way of
> documenting those requirements so that users (and tools) can do
something
> about them.  The mere act of documenting a requirement should serve as a
> hint to the model developer that generalizing the model might be a good
> idea.
> 
>  
> 
> What bothers me most are models that have an undocumented requirement,
run
> when that requirement isn't met, but produce incorrect results.  What's
> the chance that the user notices a problem and does something about it?
> Virtually nil, in my experience.  The models that flatline or crash
(I've
> seen both) are actually doing the user a favor.  Better to have no
result
> than the wrong one.
> 
>  
> 
> No one is suggesting that having a fixed (or limited) Samples_Per_Bit
> setting is a good idea.  We're not promoting bad programming practices;
> we're trying to ensure good simulation results.  If others are willing
to
> tell system designers to wait while suppliers rewrite algorithmic
models,
> great.  Seems silly to me, but maybe their users are more patient than
> mine.
> 
>  
> 
> Todd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

  1. Home
  2. ibis-macro
  3. Archive
  4. 09-2011