[ibis-macro] Re: Straw Poll vote on IBIS-ISS Package Modeling

  • From: David Banas <DBanas@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'gedlund@xxxxxxxxxx'" <gedlund@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx'" <twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:55:34 -0700

Hi Greg,

If you’re a Python fan, you might want to check out this tool:

http://pypi.python.org/pypi?:action=display&name=PyIBIS-AMI&version=0.8

It won’t give you visibility into the DLL. (A black box is a black box, 
regardless of how you poke it.)
However, it will hold the DLL in scope for as long as you wish. And it will 
allow you to poke at the model with the full power of Python and all its 
libraries. And you might find that helpful.

-db


From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Gregory R Edlund
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 10:45 AM
To: twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'IBIS-ATM'; ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Straw Poll vote on IBIS-ISS Package Modeling


Todd,

I've been using IBIS-AMI_Test.  In general, it seems like an accurate predictor 
of performance in a given tool.

Am I correct in understanding that the main purpose of IBIS-AMI_Test is to 
validate communicate between the DLL and the EDA tool?

If that's true, then the DLL could still do something like divide by zero given 
the right (pathological) input from the EDA tool, right?  How do I proceed 
debugging something like that?  I have one case where the AMI model passes 
IBIS-AMI_Test but clearly gives the wrong answer in one tool and the right 
answer in the other tools.  If the model developer doesn't own the same tool as 
me, then I'm stuck.  The tool developer has no visibility into the model.

Greg Edlund
Senior Engineer
Signal Integrity and System Timing
IBM Systems & Technology Group
3605 Hwy. 52 N  Bldg 050-3
Rochester, MN 55901



[cid:image001.gif@01CD7BCF.F39494A0]"Todd Westerhoff" ---08/16/2012 10:31:47 
AM---Greg, There is a way that a model maker can demonstrate than an AMI DLL 
loads and

From: "Todd Westerhoff" <twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx>>
To: "'IBIS-ATM'" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
<ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 08/16/2012 10:31 AM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Straw Poll vote on IBIS-ISS Package Modeling
Sent by: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

________________________________



Greg,

There is a way that a model maker can demonstrate than an AMI DLL loads and 
runs successfully, outside of any particular EDA tool.

It’s called IBIS-AMI_Test, and it can be downloaded and used for free.

If people are providing you with DLL’s without demonstrating that they run 
correctly in IBIS-AMI_Test, then you have no real independent validation that 
the DLL complies with the standard. You only have their assertion that the 
model runs in a particular tool, which may not help you much.

Todd.



Todd Westerhoff
VP, Software Products

Signal Integrity Software Inc. • www.sisoft.com<http://www.sisoft.com/>
6 Clock Tower Place • Suite 250 • Maynard, MA 01754
(978) 461-0449 x24  •  twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx>


“I want to live like that ”
                                             -Sidewalk Prophets


From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gregory R Edlund
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 9:46 AM
To: Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IBIS-ATM; 
ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Straw Poll vote on IBIS-ISS Package Modeling


Arpad,

In addition to the actual model, I expect to get a document from the supplier 
explaining how to use the model.  The automation is not a high priority for me 
because it's not labor-intensive.  Getting the model to run at all is 
definitely a high priority, and my EDA suppliers are saying they have very 
little diagnostic information when a model crashes.  If the model developer 
didn't use the same tool I'm using, that means I'm pretty much stuck in the 
middle.  Neither the EDA supplier nor the model supplier can help me debug the 
problem.

Since we all have limited resources, I would like to see us prioritize our work 
items.  The package extension has the potential to generate a lot of traffic 
and consume many weekly calls.  Is it the thing that will best help advance the 
state of IBIS AMI in 2012?  Is there some way we can survey the users to find 
out what their highest priorities are?

Greg Edlund
Senior Engineer
Signal Integrity and System Timing
IBM Systems & Technology Group
3605 Hwy. 52 N  Bldg 050-3
Rochester, MN 55901



[cid:image001.gif@01CD7BCF.F39494A0]"Muranyi, Arpad" ---08/15/2012 10:47:46 
AM---Greg, Thanks for your comments.  Like you, I would like to see

From: "Muranyi, Arpad" 
<Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>>
To: IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 08/15/2012 10:47 AM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Straw Poll vote on IBIS-ISS Package Modeling
Sent by: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

________________________________




Greg,

Thanks for your comments.  Like you, I would like to see
more comments from other users too.

But to answer your question, “along with a document saying "use this model for 
these pins"”
is what we would like to make the .ibs and/or .pkg file
to do for you (based on a standardized specification),
so that you won’t have to do it by hand.  Does that make
sense?

As an illustration I would say that we want to make a
specification which allows model vendors to send you a
machine readable netlist instead of a Word document
that describes what the circuit looks like…

Thanks,

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

From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gregory R Edlund
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:29 AM
To: wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>; IBIS-ATM; 
ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Straw Poll vote on IBIS-ISS Package Modeling


Here's one user's perspective:

I'm happy getting .s4p files from my chip suppliers along with a document 
saying "use this model for these pins" (among other things).  And if coupling 
is worth simulating, then I'm happy with an .s12p file.  I can get along 
without a CAD file to tell me how to hook up the s-parameters in the EDA tool.  
Or is there something else going on that I'm not seeing?

To me, it seems like there are bigger fish to fry, e.g. getting IBIS 5.1 out 
the door, jitter modeling, error reporting when a DLL crashes, etc.

Any other users care to weigh in?

Greg Edlund
Senior Engineer
Signal Integrity and System Timing
IBM Systems & Technology Group
3605 Hwy. 52 N  Bldg 050-3
Rochester, MN 55901



[cid:image001.gif@01CD7BCF.F39494A0]"Walter Katz" ---08/14/2012 04:24:02 
PM---[attachment "IBIS_ISS_Package_Modeling_120807.pdf" deleted by Gregory R 
Edlund/Rochester/IBM]  [atta

From: "Walter Katz" <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>>
To: "IBIS-ATM" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 08/14/2012 04:24 PM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Straw Poll vote on IBIS-ISS Package Modeling
Sent by: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

________________________________




[attachment "IBIS_ISS_Package_Modeling_120807.pdf" deleted by Gregory R 
Edlund/Rochester/IBM]
[attachment "IBIS_ISS_Package_Modeling_Discussion_1_120814.pdf" deleted by 
Gregory R Edlund/Rochester/IBM]
[attachment "PackageFunctionalityStrawPoll.xlsx" deleted by Gregory R 
Edlund/Rochester/IBM]

All,

I have put 28 questions in a spreadsheet. I think it will take too much time to 
do the voting in the meeting, so I request that you put entries 1:4 in column 1 
of each question. The meanings of 1:4 are.

4

Advocate   I need this!

3

Support      I support this

2

Abstain       I have no opinion

1

Object         I object to this functionality



Return them to me or all IBIS-ATM and I will collate the results and publish 
them by Tuesday AM. I am including the .xlsx file in case you have difficulty 
editing the spreadsheet in the body of this e-mail. Also including this and 
last weeks presentation.

Walter

4

Advocate   I need this!

3

Support      I support this

2

Abstain       I have no opinion

1

Object         I object to this functionality







Should we add keywords Pullup_Signal_name, Pulldown_Signal_name, 
Power_clamp_Signal_name, and Ground_clamp_Signal_name to the [Model] section?



Should we add a section to the .ibs file to define the voltage values of supply 
signal names?



Should we add a list of supply die pad names?



Should we add an x-y coordinate for each pin and die pad?







Should we support two signal pins connected to the same die pad (Forked Signal)?



Should we be able to associate a package model with a [Model]?



Should we be able to associate a package model with a Pin_name?



Should we be able to associate a coupled package model with a [Model]?



Should we be able to associate a coupled package model with a list of Pin_names?



Should we support package models with coupling between signals and power?



Should we support a coupled package model that hooks up to two or more [Model] 
names?



Should we support package models with more than 3 corners?



Should we support package Touchstone files directly?



Should we support sparse usage of large package Touchstone files?



Should we support package “Quadrants” (e.g. Banks, Interfaces)?



Should we support full package models?







Should we support on-die models?



Should we be able to associate an on-die model with a [Model]?



Should we be able to associate an on-die model with a Pin_name?



Should we be able to associate a coupled on-die model with a [Model]?



Should we be able to associate a coupled on-die model with a list of Pin_names?



Should we support on-die models with coupling between signals and power?



Should we support a coupled on-die model that hooks up to two or more [Model] 
names?



Should we support on-die models with more than 3 corners?



Should we support on-die Touchstone files directly?



Should we support sparse usage of large on-die Touchstone files?



Should we support on-die “Quadrants” (e.g. Banks, Interfaces)?



Should we support full on-die models?




Walter Katz
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Phone 303.449-2308
Mobile 303.335-6156

________________________________
Confidentiality Notice.
This message may contain information that is confidential or otherwise 
protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are 
hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or 
copying of this message, or any attachments, is strictly prohibited. If you 
have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, 
and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you.

GIF image

GIF image

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. ibis-macro
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2012