IBIS Macromodel Task Group
Meeting date: 6 July 2021
Members (asterisk for those attending):
Achronix Semiconductor: Hansel Dsilva
Amazon: John Yan
ANSYS: Curtis Clark
* Wei-hsing Huang
Cadence Design Systems: * Ambrish Varma
Ken Willis
Jared James
Google: Zhiping Yang
Intel: Michael Mirmak
Kinger Cai
Alaeddin Aydiner
Keysight Technologies: * Fangyi Rao
Radek Biernacki
* Ming Yan
Todd Bermensolo
* Rui Yang
Luminous Computing: David Banas
Marvell: Steve Parker
Micron Technology: * Randy Wolff
* Justin Butterfield
Missouri S&T Chulsoon Hwang
Siemens EDA (Mentor): * Arpad Muranyi
SiSoft (Mathworks): * Walter Katz
Mike LaBonte
Teraspeed Labs: * Bob Ross
Zuken USA: Lance Wang
The meeting was led by Arpad Muranyi. Justin Butterfield took the minutes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opens:
- None.
-------------
Review of ARs:
- None.
--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:
- None.
-------------------------
Review of Meeting Minutes:
Arpad asked for any comments or corrections to the minutes of the June 29th
meeting. Walter moved to approve the minutes. Randy seconded the motion.
There were no objections.
-------------
New Discussion:
AMI_Impulse:
Bob noted the discussion is related to BIRD201 with updated usage rules from
Walter. Ambrish asked if this will be a new BIRD or an editorial change. Bob
replied we could have a replacement BIRD if this is a change in functionality
or a significant clarification. If the flows are already documented, then we
might not need a new BIRD to supersede BIRD201. Arpad noted we will discuss
this in the Editorial group meeting.
BIRD211.3 draft:
Fangyi shared his latest BIRD211.3 working draft to continue discussing Arpad's
comments. Fangyi updated the drawing on page 3. He removed the "IR" from the
Channel box on page 6. On page 7, he updated the drawings to add separate
Channel IR and Convolution boxes.
Fangyi suggested, on page 14, to say "the rest of the time-domain simulation"
in steps 7 and 8.
Arpad's comments (continued from last meeting):
7. On page 9, Arpad asked whether some of the text in the steps should be
moved to the introduction rather than in the step 3 details. He thought
some of the statements are general comments which might make more sense in
the introduction. Fangyi noted this is how the text is in the existing
IBIS specification. Walter commented step 3 is where GetWave is called.
He asked, if there is no GetWave, what do you do. Ambrish stated, if you
move the text, you would have to give the context. Arpad agreed to keep
this as is.
8. The step numbers are off in the text of step 5 on page 9. Fangyi changed
these from step 7 to step 6.
9. Arpad noted that there are two occurrences of Tx_Impulse_Init and 84
instances of Tx_Impulse_Input. He suggested the instances of
Tx_Impulse_Init on page 15 should be fixed.
10. Arpad had concerns with the phrase "flow of executing AMI_Init functions",
and he suggested new text to replace the two related paragraphs. Ambrish
suggested to remove this text entirely. Arpad commented the only point we
wanted to make with this text was that older models will be executed with
the new flow. Ambrish commented, if you follow the specification, this is
now the flow. Walter commented this is a section from Bob, and we need to
ask him whether it is okay to remove or change it. Arpad stated the
unusual thing here is that we are applying the new flow to old model
versions. Ambrish suggested to say this flow should apply to all versions
of models. Bob noted we are replacing a diagram in older versions of
IBIS. Ambrish suggested to say all "IBIS-AMI versions" and not use
specific version numbers, which can become confusing in future versions.
Fangyi suggested to change "flow" to "rule".
11. Fangyi fixed the "Redriver Statistical Simulatoin Flow" title on page 15.
12. On page 17 in step 8, Arpad asked about the phrase "output end". Fangyi
suggested changing to "output".
13. Arpad suggested to say that the clock times returned "by the Rx1
AMI_GetWave function" should be ignored by the EDA tool instead of "by the
Redriver" to be more specific. Fangyi noted we say redriver already.
Arpad felt it may be easy to miss that point
Arpad asked if we should have a blanket statement that channels are allowed to
have more than one redriver in a system. Ambrish and Fangyi thought we
mention this in the BIRD already.
Fangyi noted there were additional comments on the previous draft from
Ambrish. Fangyi started making these changes and fixes to the latest draft.
Bob asked about the text insert statement on page 3. He suggested to delete
the page number and reference the context of where to make the change. Arpad
asked if we can resolve this in Editorial. Bob replied we should have clear
statements of where the text goes in order to approve the BIRD. Ambrish
suggested to say "Add the following to the end of Section 10.2.3" for clarity.
Bob asked about the mention of IBIS 7.1 and if this should be IBIS 7.2.
Fangyi changed all occurrences of IBIS 7.1 to IBIS 7.2.
Ambrish had a comment on page 4 asking if item 3 applies to redrivers only or
everything. Fangyi thought this is a general statement, and he has already
added a statement that this applies to the general flow.
The discussion left off on Ambrish's comments on page 6. Further review will
continue next week.
- Ambrish: Motion to adjourn.
- Fangyi: Second.
- Arpad: Thank you all for joining.
-------------
Next meeting: 13 July 2021 12:00pm PT
-------------
IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:
1) Simulator directives