Radek, Thank you for bringing this up. I was equally confused about this topic many moons ago, and tried to ask the same questions. They are probably in the archives if our email reflector has one... When I asked questions about this, the answers I got made me feel a little that I was mentally retarded because they made it seem that this was clearly described in the spec and it was totally obvious how the EDA tool had to formulate the parameter string for the DLL. I am glad to hear that I am not the only one who is lost and all of the sudden I am starting to feel normal again... :-) I agree that it would be a lot more consistent to do it the way you described it (without removing those branches and moving things up a level). The question after all these months and released models is whether we can make a change for the sake of consistency at the expense of braking existing models... Since this procedure is not described in the existing specification (or not adequately), part of me says that we have the freedom to describe it now any whichever way we feel is right, since the models which were released up to now were made based on non existing or speculative rules. Thanks, Arpad ====================================================================== ________________________________ From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 6:18 PM To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: question on Model_Specific branch name in input parameter string Hi Ambrish, I recall some e-mail exchanges on this subject several months ago, but I do not remember the conclusions. What you are saying sounds like another flaw in the current spec. I would expect the input/output DLL strings to conform COMPLETELY to the parameter tree hierarchy specified in the *.ami file. The reason is simple: by the principles of a parameter tree we can have exactly the same leaf or sub-branch name in two or more branches. Therefore, stripping a branch (removing it and bringing the entire sub-tree one level up) should not be allowed. Any exceptions from this rule must be explicitly stated. So, are you saying that stripping the two branches (Reserved_Parameters and Model_Specific) is a de-facto standard? Radek From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ambrish Varma Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 12:41 PM To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: question on Model_Specific branch name in input parameter string Hi Fangyi, It will be (mySampleAMI (ntap 5) ) The keywords Reserved_Parameters and Model_Specific are meant for organizing the parameters in the ami file only and not supposed to be passed to the model. Thanks, Ambrish. ________________________________ From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:32 PM To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ibis-macro] question on Model_Specific branch name in input parameter string Hi, Experts; Based on the current AMI standard should the Model_Specific branch name appear in the input parameter string to the AMI Init call? For example, for the following .ami file (mySampleAMI (Reserved_Parameters ... ) (Model_Specific (ntap (Usage In) (Type Integer) (Format Value 5)) ) ) Shall the input parameter string be (mySampleAMI (Model_Specific (ntap 5) ) ) or (mySampleAMI (ntap 5) ) I understand that if the proposed BIRD is accepted then Model_Specific and Reserved_Parameter branchs will disappear. But for models written based on the current standard it's not clear which format EDA tools should feed to models. Thanks in advance. Fangyi