Just a suggestion: it’s easier to loosen a specification than to tighten it. One simple possibility would be to add a line to BIRD131 that the [Algorithmic Model]/[End Algorithmic Model] keyword pair is required for any [Model] linked to a [Pin] number that appears under [Repeater Pin]. That would initially limit [Repeater Pin] to use with IBIS-AMI, and would be parsable, but that limitation could easily be removed in a future revision once non-IBIS-AMI support is more clear. I would argue that demand for repeater support for non-IBIS-AMI buffers is much smaller than demand for IBIS-AMI repeater support. - MM From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:02 AM To: ambrishv@xxxxxxxxxxx; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: redriver in spice simulation Ambrish; The problem is that BIRD131 has to answer the question of how a redriver model behave in non-AMI simulations, which what I try to avoid in my BIRD. Thanks, Fangyi From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ambrish Varma Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 4:07 PM To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: redriver in spice simulation Fangyi, “If this proposal is strictly for AMI purposes, and the analog models are not designed to be used in non-AMI simulations in a redriver configuration, than the BIRD should state that. ” If this statement is true then there should be no issues with combining your version of the redriver BIRD with BIRD 131 – correct? I believe we should do that for the sake of a uniform, concise and meaningful discussion. Thanks, Ambrish. From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:23 PM To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: redriver in spice simulation Fangyi, Thanks for the answers. 1) By “that” I was referring to “namely ignoring the connection between the Rx half and Tx half in SPICE/non-AMI”. If this proposal is strictly for AMI purposes, and the analog models are not designed to be used in non-AMI simulations in a redriver configuration, than the BIRD should state that. Otherwise we might have to answer questions like Ambish’s question every so often… 2) That’s an interesting point that I didn’t think of. The redriver’s Rx is a transmitter (Tx) for a link that might be tucked away between the redriver’s Rx and Tx blocks, and the redriver’s Tx might be a receiver (Rx) from that perspective. But the concept of having a channel inside the redriver is stretching the name of the redriver a little bit, and even though it is possible, I would keep the naming consistent with the primary purpose. But this is not what I was hung up on when I first commented on this. What bothered me the most is that people (you?) started to call blocks as “input” or “output” which to me meant a terminal into which a signal is going in or from where a signal is coming out. As a result, I started to read statements like “signal going into an output {terminal}”, which sounded like nonsense to me. Whatever we end up calling these repeater blocks, I would like to use names which can’t be shortened so that sentences could be grossly misinterpreted. 3) Please spell out the nature of the input to Tx GetWave. In the light of recent discussions I feel this would be important to have in the BIRD to eliminate any misinterpretations (and arguments) in the future. 4) Please try to work with Walter if possible on a common proposal so that the entire proposal/concept would be in one BIRD, and not sprinkled around in several BIRDs. Thanks, Arpad =============================================================================== From: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:19 PM To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: redriver in spice simulation 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 ==================================================================