IBIS Macromodel Task Group
Meeting date: 05 Jul 2011
Members (asterisk for those attending):
Agilent: Fangyi Rao
Radek Biernacki
Ansoft: Chris Herrick
Danil Kirsanov
Ansys: Samuel Mertens
Dan Dvorscak
Deepak Ramaswamy
Jianhua Gu
* Curtis Clark
Arrow Electronics: Ian Dodd
Cadence Design Systems: Terry Jernberg
* Ambrish Varma
Celsionix: Kellee Crisafulli
Cisco Systems: * Mike LaBonte
Stephen Scearce
Ashwin Vasudevan
Syed Huq
Ericsson: Anders Ekholm
IBM: Greg Edlund
Intel: Michael Mirmak
LSI Logic: Wenyi Jin
Mentor Graphics: John Angulo
Vladimir Dmitriev-Zdorov
Zhen Mu
* Arpad Muranyi
Micron Technology: Randy Wolff
NetLogic Microsystems: Ryan Couts
Nokia-Siemens Networks: * Eckhard Lenski
Sigrity: Brad Brim
Kumar Keshavan
* Ken Willis
SiSoft: * Walter Katz
Mike Steinberger
* Todd Westerhoff
Doug Burns
Snowbush IP: Marcus Van Ierssel
ST Micro: Syed Sadeghi
Teraspeed Consulting Group: Scott McMorrow
* Bob Ross
TI: Casey Morrison
Alfred Chong
Vitesse Semiconductor: Eric Sweetman
Xilinx: Mustansir Fanaswalla
The meeting was lead by Arpad Muranyi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opens:
- None
--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:
- None
-------------
Review of ARs:
- Arpad submit BIRD draft
-------------
New Discussion:
Arpad showed the Correcting the rules for AMI_Close BIRD draft:
- Arpad: If we submit this all 5.1 items will be completed
- Arpad described the recent BIRD changes
- Arpad motioned to submit this BIRD to the open forum
- Todd seconded the motion
- The vote passed by acclamation
AR: Arpad submit Correcting the rules for AMI_Close BIRD draft to open forum
Arpad asked us to check the task list to verify things really are done:
- Arpad: Todd said we could not drop items 46 & 47
- Is the Version keyword not sufficient for this
- Walter: We should go through all jitter parameters to see what they replace
- Would like to defer this discussion
- Some parameters overlap, some don't
- Bob: There is an assumption that 5.1 will be released with what we have now
- We should not use Version to determine which jitter keywords are best
AR: All check task list to verify completion of items
Walter showed an email from Mike about BIRD 121.1:
- Walter: Mike sent comments on the parameter name spellings
- No objection if people want to clean up the parameter names
- Walter already replied about use of DLLPath
- Mike: Agree with the reply
- Ken: Do other kinds of files have to be kept together?
- Walter: There has to be a way to find the files
- Ken: The user would have to set the path string
- Walter: The EDA tool would have to know how to handle that
- Ken: Does this make it illegal to put full paths in text files?
- Todd: This helps models find their files after they have been moved around
- Arpad: These should be Reserved, not Model_Specific
- At least not Info types (Supporting_Files)
- Walter said that would be OK
- Ken: Is DLLPath separate from CWD?
- Walter: Yes
- Each model instance might be given a different DLLPath too
- Bob: Supporting_Files should be a Table syntax
- Walter: It could be a Table
- Todd: The EDA tool realizes when it is given a directory, not a file
- This is to avoid overwriting files
- Ambrish: Should the parser check this?
- Todd: It probably should
- It can only check for existence, not contents
- Ambrish: Why would the files not be at the DLL location?
- Todd: Tools have import functions
- Those have to know what files to carry over
- Bob asked a few more questions about locating files and Todd gave examples
- Arpad: IBS, AMI, and DLL files have to be n the same place
- Supporting_Files is relative to that
- Ambrish: Why does the DLL not know where it is?
- Todd: It knows where it is running, not where it's image is
- Arpad: It should be more specific than "correct path"
- Walter changed a sentence.
- Ambrish: So a partial path would be relative to the CWD
- Mike: The CWD might be tricky to use
- It may be some path like /windows/system32 that is not useful
- Arpad: Should we mandate full paths?
- Walter: The EDA tool should do what it wants to
- It is up to them to do the right thing
- Arpad: If paths could be full or relative that is harder for model makers
- Walter: The OS handles it
- The code is the same either way
- Todd: DLLPath can be prepended to the file name
- We should say if it has the trailing slash or not
- It should end in a slash
- Mike: Do we want the parser to reject DLLPath not ending in slash?
- Walter: The EDA tool generates it on the fly, it is not parsed
- Should the parser ignore the value?
- Bob: The EDA tool might just pass along the .ami value
- Walter changed the spec value for DLLPath
- Todd: The path "./" would open relative to the CWD
- Ambrish: We never pass Reserved params back to the model at all
- We would be breaking that rule
- Walter: That was a convention, not a rule
- I will not submit this to the open forum yet
- DLLid has similar conventions to DLLPath
- Bob: The other question is about Supporting_Files format List vs. Table
- Walter: To the parser they are just strings
- They are not really for the DLL, mostly for tools that transport files
Meeting ended.
-------------
Next meeting: 12 July 2011 12:00pm PT
Next agenda:
1) Task list item discussions
-------------
IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:
1) Simulator directives