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

  • From: Ken Willis <kenw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'IBIS-ATM'" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:53:29 -0700

Hi Arpad,

Admittedly we are probably a little slow to respond, as there are lots of 
activities currently around the CDS/Sigrity merger, as you may imagine. But we 
have spoken internally to Cadence on this topic and plan to work on a BIRD in 
this area in the fall timeframe. The proposal will be vendor-neutral, and not 
limited to either schematic-based or layout-based SI tool environments (we have 
used MCP in both of these environments within Sigrity for a long time).

thanks,

Ken Willis
Cadence Design Systems
980-245-7595

________________________________
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad [Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 2:53 PM
To: 'IBIS-ATM'
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Straw Poll vote on IBIS-ISS Package Modeling

Ken,

I understand that, that’s not my problem with MCP.

I asked a few questions a couple of weeks ago from
Brad and Sam, to which I didn’t get a response yet.

My biggest concern is that this feature will most likely
exclude most IBIS supporting circuit simulator tools which
do not have graphical capabilities of displaying/editing
die, package, and board outlines and footprints, since my
understanding from that email thread was that translation,
rotation, etc… will be necessary by user intervention to
find the correct lineup between the package and the die,
or the package and the board because there are no standards
for the location of the origin.

IBIS always had a goal of having tool/vendor neutrality
but adding this feature would indirectly favor certain
tool(s)/vendor(s).

I am open to a discussion on this topic, but so far I am
not getting responses to my questions…

Thanks,

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

From: Ken Willis [mailto:kenw@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 1:19 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; 'IBIS-ATM'
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Straw Poll vote on IBIS-ISS Package Modeling

Hi Arpad,

If we got MCP into IBIS it could just be new IBIS syntax, not comments.

thanks,

Ken Willis
Cadence Design Systems
980-245-7595

________________________________
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad 
[Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 11:46 AM
To: 'IBIS-ATM'
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Straw Poll vote on IBIS-ISS Package Modeling
Walter,

Regarding:

“I would suggest for these advanced applications to not complicate IBIS, but 
recommend that you add an “MCP” section within IBIS using the same technique of 
adding “MCP” records using the native IBIS comment character “|”, similar to 
the way you add “MCP” records to the SPICE subckts using the SPICE comment 
character “*”.”

I disagree as strongly as you can imagine…

Putting modeling data, instructions, etc... behind comments
in an otherwise IBIS or SPICE compliant file defeats the
purpose of having a standard.  Using this technique, any
vendor could develop their proprietary tools and models which
only work in that specific tool, and they wouldn’t even be
obligated to explain to the rest of the world what all this
is about.  And claiming that the models are IBIS compliant
because they pass the parser is a rootless advertisement lie,
because the model really works as designed in a specific tool
that understands the commented features.

I would discourage anyone from using these practices.

Thanks,

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

Other related posts:

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