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
