All, Responding to Kumar?s comments: 1. Agreed, as shown in the Flows_3W, everything works. It simply requires doing a deconvolution for two of the flows. I suggested adding the option for the AMI_Init to return the Buffer-Equalization so that deconvolution would not be required. 2. Two different types of data in the same vector is not confusing if you document it properly. We already have three different types of data in the same array of vectors. Three comes from the Channel, the Modified Channel, and Crosstalk. 3. There is no need for Init to return an impulse response when GetWave exist, but is highly desirable. Consider the task of the person writing the Rx model. Is the input to his AMI_Init call going to contain the Tx equalization or not? Anyone who writes a Tx model that has a GetWave and does not return a modified impulse response can significantly degrade the behavior of the Rx model. Walter Walter Katz 303.449-2308 Mobile 720.333-1107 wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx www.sisoft.com -----Original Message----- From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of C. Kumar Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 6:43 PM To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Three new flow diagrams have been posted hello: some flow diagram comments 1. I am not convinced about the need to return the buffer equalization rather than the modified impulse response. At this point i do not see why we have to break the established flows with modified impulse response 2.impulse response and buffer equalization is two different types of data and using the same vector in ami init both of them can be confusing. 3. I also do not see the need for a model to return modified impulse response when it has a getwave function. it should be free not to return anything after init. --- On Fri, 10/9/09, Muranyi, Arpad <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Muranyi, Arpad <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Three new flow diagrams have been posted To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Friday, October 9, 2009, 7:37 PM Fangyi, I think you are correct with your observations. The main difference between the last two flows is that mine will let the tool do the convolutions at all times, even for the Init functions. This way there is no need for the Boolean switches, and there is no need for that deconvolution Walter has. Other than that, I believe the two flows are pretty much equivalent. Arpad ========================================================= -----Original Message----- From: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:14 PM To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Three new flow diagrams have been posted Hi, Arpad; Thanks for your efforts to clean up the flows. My understanding of them is Flows_3A and Flows_3W are basically the same. In order to handle four permutations of Tx/Rx GetWave_Exists and to support stateye, the simulation must know different combinations of h_AC, h_TEI and h_REI from Tx and Rx Init calls. In your flow (3A) Init simply returns h_TEI or h_REI. In Walter's flow (3W) the simulator figures out h_REI by deconvolution. This is the only difference between 3A and 3W. If that's the case I'd favor 3A because it's cleaner. Regards, Fangyi -----Original Message----- From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 2:46 PM To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ibis-macro] Three new flow diagrams have been posted Hello Everyone! I would like to inform all of you that we just posted three new flow diagram PDF files to the IBIS-ATM web site. http://www.vhdl.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/archive/20091009/arpadmurany i/AMI%20flows:%202009%20Sept%2029%20proposal%20-%20fixed/AMI_Flows_2fixe d.pdf AMI_Flows_2fixed.pdf is basically the same flow we discussed in the October 6th, 2009 teleconference but I added the correction that was requested based on Ambrish's question. I also added some notes to the bottom of the last two slides. http://www.vhdl.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/archive/20091009/arpadmurany i/AMI%20flows:%20Walters%202009%20October%206%20proposal/AMI_Flows_3W.pd f http://www.vhdl.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/archive/20091009/arpadmurany i/AMI%20flows:%20Arpads%202009%20October%206%20proposal/AMI_Flows_3A.pdf AMI_Flows_3W.pdf and AMI_Flows_3A.pdf are new flows which came out of the discussions in the October 6th ATM teleconference mostly based on Danil's comments to try simplifying things. The file with 3W is Walter's way of implementing the simplifications. The file with 3A is my way of simplifying things. Please study them both and be ready for comments in our next IBIS-ATM teleconference. Thanks, 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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