Re: Connector spec swathing.. to the Subcommittee meeting.

The preference for me is c or d. This is not a vote just an opinion.

Best Regards,

apanella@molex.com wrote:

> Chris..
>
> I 've read ... reread... and reread Fred's message...
> The only thing I see is references to providing a "full matrix"
>
> Quoting the Fred's messages:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Why not give the full matrix and let the simulation SI tool decide which part
> of the matrix to choose for simulation based on what pin and coupling is
> desired."
>
> "I'm not suggesting that you model the full connector if its large. Rather, if
> you model only a portion then I prefer that you tell me that and give me that
> answer rather than bogus something."
>
> "If you feel that the connector is repetitive then put together the model such
> that I get a full matrix type or sparse matrix."
>
> " If you give me the full model I will then PICK the data I wish to simulate
> from the full data you gave me. However giving me a swat
> ensures that for some pins I will lose some coupling. It also ensures confusion
> and abiguity."
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> To me this sounds like "No Swath..".
>
> !!!!! I apologize to all if I incorrectly interpreted these statements and
> wasted a lot of bandwidth describing the potential (maybe not apparent)
> advantages of the swath concept!!!!
>
> ALSO IMPORTANT:
> Chris, Since your first message... I understood that you just want a defined
> an algorithm for doing the swath...
>
> In the "for what it is worth" category....
> Right now, the specification is written such that a specific model could be a
> "full matrix" OR "swath". .... (And for what it is worth... there is nothing
> stating that a model must contain one or the other or both... nor is there
> anything that states that a simulator needs to support one or the other or
> both.).
>
> I will make sure that our next IBIS Connector Model Subcommittee that we resolve
> the issue of the "level of detail" that is needed for the swath algorithm.
>
> I understand both sides of the argument on whether or not to include a specific
> swath algorithm. I think some people want to leave the algorithm "more"
> open... while others want the algorithm "more defined".
> As such, I think our options are:
>
> a) Keep the definition as it is... (i.e. OPEN)
> b) Provide a "TYPICAL" algorithm
> c) Provide a "RECOMMENDED" algorithm
> d) provide a "SPECIFIC" algorithm
> e) REMOVE swath.
>
> I would guess that most of the people concerned want "c" or "d". I am happy
> with a, b, c, or d.... but think "b or above" is a pretty good idea.
> At this point, I think most of us believe that "e" is unacceptable.
>
> I would encourage any one who really wants "d" to provide a "first pass" example
> as soon as possible such that we can start the review and incorporation process.
> As I know the present keywords and methodology, I would be willing to commit
> time to help with the development.
>
> I can be contacted directly at:
> 630-527-4617
> .... for any further discussions.
>
> _gus:
>
> ___________Reply Separator____________________
> Subject: RE: Re[2]: Connector spec swathing
> Author: "Chris Rokusek" <crokusek@innoveda.com>
> Date: 6/16/00 9:58 AM
>
> Gus,
>
> (Hoping we are one step towards closure!!)
>
> You wrote...
>
> > The draw back to simulators... they need to bang out some code that
> creates a
> > matrix from a small matrix as limited by the keywords. From what I have
> been
> > told, this is not very difficult
>
> This is the procedure I (and Fred?) are concerned about. It may not be
> difficult but it sure seems ambiguous for cases not covered by Bob's
> posting. If this mapping is described in detail or implemented within the
> parser then I believe we will all be happy. The data files contain swaths
> but we can query against a full matrix--which doesn't mean we're going to
> SIMULATE the full matrix it just means we can reduce it to the pins we're
> interested in. Fred is right--there is confusion between on this thread
> between data presentation and simulation. Just because we want a full
> matrix doesn't mean we're going to SIMULATE a full matrix.
>
> Fred is also NOT saying "don't use the swath."
>
> Perhaps the confusion is that you think we're saying that the Full Matrix
> should be explicitly described in the file. No, we're saying USE the swath,
> but define the expansion rigorously or build it into the parser. When we
> say we want the Full Matrix, we're NOT saying it should be spelled out
> explicitly in the file--we're saying we must be able to perform the swath
> mapping correctly for all possible cases.
>
> Chris Rokusek
> Innoveda
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: apanella@molex.com [mailto:apanella@molex.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 5:30 AM
> > To: fred
> > Cc: ibis@eda.org
> > Subject: Re[2]: Connector spec swathing
> >
> >SNIP>

--
Fred Balistreri
fred@apsimtech.com
http://www.apsimtech.com