[ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
- From: Ambrish Varma <ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:55:50 -0700
Thanks Fangyi,
Walter and I endorse Arpad's version as well. Let us vote on it tomorrow and
send it to the open forum.
Thanks,
Ambrish.
Ambrish Varma | Member of Consulting Staff
P: 978.262.6431 www.cadence.com
-----Original Message-----
From: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 3:11 PM
To: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx; Ambrish Varma; Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx;
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: kwillis@xxxxxxxxxxx; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
Sorry for a typo.
^*step 3 output is h_AC*h_RE for TF and h_AC*h_TE*h_RE for FF
Fangyi
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 12:06 PM
To: ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx; Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx; wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: kwillis@xxxxxxxxxxx; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
I did the following comparison between Ambrish-Walter's and Arpad's flow BIRDs
and confirmed that they are equivalent.
Ambrish-Walter's BIRD:
Tx_GW Rx_GW
Exists Exists step 5 output step 6 output
-------------------------------------------------------------
T T TxGW[p(t)]*h_AC RxGW[TxGW[p(t)]*h_AC]
T F TxGW[p(t)] h_AC*h_RE*TxGW[p(t)] ^*
F T h_AC*h_TE*p(t) RxGW[h_AC*h_TE*p(t)]
F F p(t) h_AC*h_TE*h_RE*p(t) ^*
^* step 3 output is h_AC*h_TE for TF and h_AC*h_TE*h_RE for FF
Arpad's BIRD:
Tx_GW Rx_GW
Exists Exists step 6 output step 7 output
-------------------------------------------------------------
T T (6a) TxGW[p(t)]*h_AC RxGW[TxGW[p(t)]*h_AC]
T F (6d) h_AC*h_RE*TxGW[p(t)] skip
F T (6b) h_AC*h_TE*p(t) RxGW[h_AC*h_TE*p(t)]
F F (6c) h_AC*h_TE*h_RE*p(t) skip
Like Ken, I think Arpad's is more clear because it explicitly show each of the
four combinations in 6a, 6b, 6c and 6d.
Regards,
Fangyi
-----Original Message-----
From: Ambrish Varma [mailto:ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 12:09 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx; RAO,FANGYI (A-USA,ex1)
Cc: Ken Willis
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
Thanks Walter - I think that correction would cover all the cases with the last
version that I sent out in the morning.
Arpad, I will say again, both versions achieve the same objectives.
I will leave it to the group to decide which version to pick.
Thanks,
Ambrish.
Ambrish Varma | Member of Consulting Staff
P: 978.262.6431 www.cadence.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Muranyi, Arpad [mailto:Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 2:05 PM
To: wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx; Ambrish Varma; Fangyi Rao
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
Walter,
While your suggestion may fix the problem I mentioned in my
last email (I think it was actually Fangyi who discovered it,
to give credit where it is due), you are now adding an
additional level of disorganization to the text.
The way it would be written with this change,
Tx GetWave_Exists is mentioned in Steps 3, 5b
Rx GetWave_Exists is mentioned in Steps 5a, 5b, 6b
as conditions for how the EDA tool needs to convolve (and/or
deconvolve) various items. It is very confusing to the reader
to keep track of all these ifs and buts in the different steps,
and the writing style of the specification doesn't reveal a
deep thinking process the way it is organized.
My reference flow is organized as follows:
Step 5: Mention that Tx GetWave is executed if exists
Step 6: Discuss the EDA tool convolution options based
on the GetWave_Exists conditions (in the fashion
of a 2x2 truth table matrix)
Step 7: Mention that Rx GetWave is executed if exists
Writing the reference flow in this manner is less error prone,
easier to understand, and shows a well organized structure.
Why do you and Ambrish resist this change so much? After all,
it does not change the technical content of the reference flow,
or does it?
Thanks,
Arpad
===============================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 12:27 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx; Fangyi Rao
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
Arpad,
Good catch:
| Step 5a. If the Tx GetWave_Exists is True, the output of Step 4 is
| presented to the Tx model's AMI_GetWave function and the Tx
| AMI_GetWave function is executed. The output of Step 5a is
| convolved with the output of Step 1 by the simulation
platform.
| Step 5b. If the Tx GetWave_Exists is False, the output of Step 4
convolved
| with the output of Step 2 by the simulation platform.
However, if
| Rx GetWave_Exists is also False, the output of Step 4 is
passed
on
| to Step 6.
Should be:
| Step 5a. If the Tx GetWave_Exists is True, the output of Step 4 is
| presented to the Tx model's AMI_GetWave function and the Tx
| AMI_GetWave function is executed. If Rx GetWave_Exists is
also
True,
| the output of Step 5a is convolved with the output of Step 1
by
the
| simulation platform.
| Step 5b. If the Tx GetWave_Exists is False, the output of Step 4
convolved
| with the output of Step 2 by the simulation platform.
However, if
| Rx GetWave_Exists is also False, the output of Step 4 is
passed
on
| to Step 6.
Walter
Walter Katz
303.449-2308
Mobile 303.883-2120
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
www.sisoft.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Muranyi, Arpad [mailto:Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 12:41 PM
To: Walter Katz; ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx; Fangyi Rao
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
Walter,
When
Tx Init_Returns_Impulse=false
Tx GetWave_Exists=true
Rx Init_Returns_Impulse=true
Rx GetWave_Exists=false
the output of step 3 is: h_AC(t) * h_REI(t)
the output of Step 5 is: h_AC(t) * g_TEG[x(t)]
the output of Step 6b is: h_AC(t) * g_TEG[x(t)] * h_AC(t) * h_REI(t)
according to Ambrish's latest draft. This case seems
to be row 10 in your spreadsheet, and the output of
Step 6b as written in Ambrish's latest draft doesn't
agree with your equation in cell P10.
Thanks,
Arpad
======================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:12 AM
To: ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'Fangyi Rao'; Muranyi, Arpad
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
All,
I correlating the suggested wording with the enclosed spreadsheet. Below
is
my conclusion that the current wording is OK.
Walter
| Step 5a. If the Tx GetWave_Exists is True, the output of Step 4 is
| presented to the Tx model's AMI_GetWave function and the Tx
| AMI_GetWave function is executed. The output of Step 5a is
| convolved with the output of Step 1 by the simulation
platform.
| Step 5b. If the Tx GetWave_Exists is False, the output of Step 4
convolved
| with the output of Step 2 by the simulation platform.
However, if
| Rx GetWave_Exists is also False, the output of Step 4 is
passed
on
| to Step 6.
|
|
| Step 6a. If the Rx GetWave_Exists is True, the output of Step 5 is
| passed directly into the Rx AMI_GetWave function and the Rx
| AMI_GetWave function is executed.
| Step 6b. If the Rx GetWave_Exists is False, the output of Step 5 is
| convolved with the output of Step 3.
Based on my 9 cases in the enclosed spreadsheet
| Step 5a. If the Tx GetWave_Exists is True, the output of Step 4 is
| presented to the Tx model's AMI_GetWave function and the Tx
| AMI_GetWave function is executed.
WMK The output of Step 5a agrees with cells J3, J4, J6 ,J7, J10, and J11
in
the spreadsheet.
The output of Step 5a is
| convolved with the output of Step 1 by the simulation
platform.
WMK This occurs in cells L3, O4, L6 ,L7, O10, and L11 in the
spreadsheet.
| Step 5b. If the Tx GetWave_Exists is False, the output of Step 4
convolved
| with the output of Step 2 by the simulation platform.
However, if
| Rx GetWave_Exists is also False, the output of Step 4 is
passed
on
| to Step 6.
WMK Rx GetWave_Exists True: This agrees with cells L5 L9
WMK Rx GetWave_Exists False This agrees with cells O8
|
|
| Step 6a. If the Rx GetWave_Exists is True, the output of Step 5 is
| passed directly into the Rx AMI_GetWave function and the Rx
| AMI_GetWave function is executed.
WMK This agree with Cells L3, L5, L6, L7, L9, L11.
| Step 6b. If the Rx GetWave_Exists is False, the output of Step 5 is
| convolved with the output of Step 3.
WMK This agrees with Cells O4, O8, O10
Note that cell O4 is where the notes about deconvolution apply.
Walter Katz
303.449-2308
Mobile 303.883-2120
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
www.sisoft.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ambrish Varma
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 9:17 AM
To: 'Fangyi Rao'; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
Hi Fangyi,
Sorry about that - You are correct. It was a result of a slight
oversight on
my part.
I have fixed the wordings to correctly represent the scenario now.
Please let me know if there are any issues with this version.
Thanks,
Ambrish.
Ambrish Varma | Member of Consulting Staff
P: 978.262.6431 www.cadence.com
-----Original Message-----
From: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 7:46 PM
To: Ambrish Varma; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
Hi, Ambrish;
Can you explain to me how the double-counting of channel impulse
response is
fixed? Take the case Tx_GetWave_Exists=False and
Rx_GetWave_Exists=False.
Step 1 output: h_AC
Step 3 output: h_TE*h_AC*h_RE
Step 4 output: p(t) (bit stream)
Step 5b output: h_AC*p(t)
(new sentence "if Rx GetWave_Exists is also False, the output of Step 4
is
convolved with the output of Step 1" you add to 5b.)
Step 6b: h_AC*p(t) * h_TE*h_AC*h_RE
("If the Rx GetWave_Exists is False, the output of Step 5 is convolved
with
the output of Step 3")
So h_AC is counted twice. Did I miss something?
Thanks,
Fangyi
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ambrish Varma
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 2:41 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
Fangyi,
Thanks for pointing out the double counting in step 6 in section 3.2
during
the call. I have added a sentence in step 5b that should fix the issue.
Please let me know if it addresses the issue you have raised.
Thanks,
Ambrish.
Ambrish Varma | Member of Consulting Staff
P: 978.262.6431 www.cadence.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 10:30 AM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
Hello everyone,
In the attached version of the flow BIRD draft I added a few items at
the
end to remove all mention of Use_Init_Output from the spec, and added
Walter's note below to the "Analysis path/data/that led to
specification"
section. Please review this draft and lets vote tomorrow.
Thanks,
Arpad
===============================================================
________________________________
From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 1:32 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; IBIS-ATM
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Updated AMI Flow BIRD
Arpad,
I think in the case of Use_Init_Output, we should remove all references
to Use_Init_Output in the body of the final 5.1 Version, and add
something like the following in a new IBIS Deprecation Section:
The parameter Use_Init_Output was an optional reserved parameter in IBIS
5.0. The use of Use_Init_Output has been deprecated in IBIS 5.1, and EDA
tools shall ignore the value of Use_Init_Output, and assume that models
operate according to the flows as described in IBIS 5.1. In IBIS 5.0,
Use_Init_Output only had application to time domain flows in conjunction
with dual models (Init_Returns_Impulse=True, and GetWave_Exists=True).
Existing dual models that assumed the logic of Use_init_Ouput=True as
specified in IBIS 5.0 may not work properly in the flows documented in
IBIS 5.1.
Walter
Walter Katz
303.449-2308
Mobile 303.883-2120
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
www.sisoft.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Other related posts:
