Hi, Arpad; My answers are inserted. Regarding “So I tend to agree to Radek’s suggestion, namely ignoring the connection between the Rx half and Tx half in SPICE/non-AMI. But that’s beyond the scope of my BIRD.”, If that is the case, the BIRD should state that explicitly, and propose verbiage for the specification for a statement like that. But I am not sure how much of your BIRD text actually goes into the spec. Could you explain that? FR: what dose ‘that’ mean? I would suggest to change the words “input *** model” and “output *** model” to “receiver *** model” and “transmitter *** model” to eliminate possible confusions along the lines we just had in this thread. FR: It’s fine for me to use Rx/Tx instead of input/output, but I know there are people who would argue strongly against using Rx/Tx because in optical redriver models the first half actually transmits signal and the second half receives signal. Any suggestion for better terminology is welcome. Are you assuming that if the model is made for a redriver, the model maker will know that the Rx GetWave output should be (a +/- 0.5 V digital waveform) or make the Tx GetWave accept true analog waveforms? FR: Tx GetWave accepts continuous analog waveform. I can spell it out in the BIRD. Another question, which was also mentioned yesterday in the ATM meeting: If an .ibs file has multiple Rx and Tx AMI models, how would the simulator know which Rx goes with which Tx model? That’s addressed in Walter’s BIRD. Regards, Fangyi ================================================================== From: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:21 PM To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: redriver in spice simulation Hi, Arpad; I think some of your confusion arises from the wrong redriver AMI flow on the 1st page in your drawing. The correct one, as plotted in my BIRD, is Rx anlg -> Rx GetWave -> Tx GetWave -> Tx anlg So the redriver simulation is just two back-to-back regular AMI simulations. The only thing special about redriver is that Rx GetWave output is the input to Tx GetWave. Regarding your questions, 1) how are the analog models used in legacy simulations FR: My BIRD only concerns with AMI usage, and I don’t think it is meaningful to run SPICE simulation on redriver model w/o involving its algorithmic parts. So I tend to agree to Radek’s suggestion, namely ignoring the connection between the Rx half and Tx half in SPICE/non-AMI. But that’s beyond the scope of my BIRD. 2) how are the analog models used in the IBIS-AMI simulations for channel characterization FR: Given the correct flow described in the beginning of this email, it should be clear that in channel characterization, analog model is used in the exact same way as in a regular AMI simulation. 3) how are the analog models used in the AMI flow FR: Given the correct flow described in the beginning of this email, it should be clear that in AMI flow, analog model is used in the exact same way as in a regular AMI simulation. 4) what is the nature of the analog models in either of these flows FR: Given the correct flow described in the beginning of this email, it should be clear that in the nature of analog model is exactly the same as it’s in regular AMI flows. Hope this helps. Regards, Fangyi