Radek,
Thanks for your suggestion, but I don't think I agree with it.
Here is why:
There are two scenarios to consider. One is when the [Merged Pins]
keyword is NOT present, and the other when the keyword is present.
Randy would like to be able to make merged models both ways. If the
[Merged Pins] keyword is not present, the merged pins will be left
unconnected, because the [Merged Pins] keyword doesn't tell the tool
to connect the merged pins with the merging pin (on the pin side).
In this case these merged pins will indeed be floating, so the
wording in the BIRD is correct.
Thanks,
Arpad
========================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:27 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Updated BIRD draft on [Define Package Model] is on the ATM website
now
Hi Arpad,
I would suggest a more precise statement to replace:
For pins that are not listed under the [Pin Numbers] keyword in the [Define
Package Model] section, i.e., pins whose package model is not defined in the
[Define Package Model] keyword, the EDA tool is expected to first look for the
package RLC values under the [Pin] keyword. If this information is not
available there, the EDA tool is expected to make use of the package RLC values
in the [Package] keyword. However, the EDA tool is expected to use an open
circuit between those pins and their corresponding pads that are not listed
under the [Pin Numbers] keyword but are connected to a bus (defined by the [Pin
Mapping] keyword) where the bus includes another pin that is listed under the
[Pin Numbers] keyword.
by
For pins that are not listed under the [Pin Numbers] keyword in the [Define
Package Model] section, i.e., pins whose package model is not defined in the
[Define Package Model] keyword, the EDA tool is expected to first look for the
package RLC values under the [Pin] keyword. If this information is not
available there, the EDA tool is expected to make use of the package RLC values
in the [Package] keyword. However, if such a pin is connected to a bus (defined
by the [Pin Mapping] keyword) where the bus includes another pin that is listed
under the [Pin Numbers] keyword then the [Package] or [Pin] RLC sub-circuit
shall not be used.
I have changed the last sentence. My point is that the unlisted pins are still
connected to the pads via the [Merged Pins] mechanism and, therefore, are not
open-circuited.
Radek
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 1:55 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Updated BIRD draft on [Define Package Model] is on the
ATM website now
Hello everyone,
This is to inform you that an updated version of the BIRD draft on the topic of
clarifying the [Define Package Model] keyword is now available on the ATM
website:
http://www.vhdl.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/archive/20150409/arpadmuranyi/Power%20Pin%20Package%20Modeling%20BIRD%20draft%202/BIRD175_draft2.pdf
Please look it over and give us your feedback in case something needs to be
changed.
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
