================================================================================
IBIS INTERCONNECT TASK GROUP
http://www.ibis.org/interconnect_wip/
Mailing list: ibis-interconnect@freelists.org
Archives at http://www.freelists.org/archive/ibis-interconn/
================================================================================
Attendees from June 10, 2020 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio)
ANSYS Curtis Clark*
Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak*
Ifiok Umoh
Eric Edwards
Keysight Technologies Radek Biernacki
Mentor, A Siemens Business Arpad Muranyi*
Micron Technology Justin Butterfield*
Randy Wolff*
SiSoft Walter Katz*
Mike LaBonte
Teraspeed Labs Bob Ross*
Zuken USA Lance Wang*
Michael Mirmak convened the meeting. No patents were declared.
Justin Butterfield took minutes.
Review of Minutes:
- Michael called for review of the minutes from the June 3, 2020 meeting.
Randy moved to approve the minutes. Curtis seconded. The minutes were
approved without objection.
Review of ARs:
- Michael to send out EMD draft13.
- Michael reported this was done.
Opens:
- None.
EMD Draft Review:
Michael noted we left off on rule 2.b with some changes to the header for this
rule. He asked if there were any additional changes to the text of this
rule. Randy asked about changing the word "node" to "terminal". Michael
stated rule 2.a uses the phrase "identically-named terminals", and he noted
that 2.a and 2.b are not talking about the same thing exactly. Randy was not
sure we have used the words "node" and "terminal" consistently. Arpad asked
what the difference is between a node and a terminal. He suggested a node
should be an internal connection and a terminal should be an external
connection. Arpad suggested to use the word "terminal" in the case of rule
2.b. Arpad asked about the word "connections" in the phrase "short all
connections". Michael asked about connected rail pin_names and if you can
connect the name. Bob replied you cannot, as there is no *.pin_name for
this. The bus_label should match up, and the signal_names should match up.
Arpad asked if we are shorting terminals or if we are shorting terminal
lines. Michael replied "terminal lines" is describing the syntax. Arpad was
concerned if terminals are for IBIS-ISS and ports are for S-parameters. Randy
replied terminal is the higher level language referring to both cases. Bob
commented rule 2.b shorts similarly named terminals across interfaces whether
they are Touchstone or IBIS-ISS.
Michael asked, for rule 2.c, if we want to say global ground. Bob replied we
had defined simulator global reference in the past. Randy mentioned most of
the use of the word "node" is in the phrase "global reference node". Arpad
suggested rule 2.c.iii should say shorted rather than connected.
Michael noted, after the connection rules, the next section should be
deleted. He asked if any of this text needs to be retained. Michael asked
about the sentence that starts with "all EMD models with only rail terminals",
and if this has been rewritten. Bob replied the statements in the section
13.6 rules are equivalent. Michael asked if the rules have been replicated.
Bob replied this could be look at as a cross check. Section 13.6 is
reorganized to better group the rules and restate them. Michael asked about
the phrase "EMD terminal" that is only used in this section and if we no
longer want to use this phrase. Bob commented the intent was to delete the
section. Randy suggested to review this off-line. Randy commented some of
the introductions are only in this section. Michael agreed this should be
reviewed. Randy suggested a few sentences can be moved to the introductions.
Michael asked who would like to take this on. Randy will review the rule
section marked for deletion on page 37 and identify text to be retained and
moved to the introduction [AR].
Michael asked about the text at the top of page 38 and if this is duplicated
elsewhere. Bob replied this was copied from the Interconnect Model Set with
changes to the EMD Sets and Groups. This was intended to be superseded by
13.6. Michael asked if we need the same off-line review of this section. Bob
noted some of the aggressor only rules are duplicated in section 13.6.
Michael noted this needs the same review as the previous section. Randy will
review the section marked for deletion on page 38 and propose how to integrate
this text [AR].
Michael noted there is a third section on page 39 marked for deletion. Randy
volunteered review the section marked for deletion on page 39 and propose how
to integrate this text [AR].
Michael asked if the examples are general or are to illustrate the 13.6
rules. Bob noted there are many of the rules displayed in the examples. Bob
noted the *.VDD rule is only shown in the examples. Randy noted the examples
are meant to be after the keyword example for EMD Model. Michael asked if
this intended to be the comprehensive examples. Randy replied the most
comprehensive examples are in section 13.5, but they do not show all of the
possible cases. Bob commented we might need more work on the examples.
Michael commented the examples are in the correct location. Randy noted at
typo in the examples, where the EMD pins "P1 P1" should be "P1 P2". Michael
made this correction. Arpad noted an instance of "Pins" which should be
"Pin". Michael fixed the same issue in all the examples.
Bob asked about rule 2.b.i, where we use the angle brackets and we never use
term singal_name_entry. He asked if we can use the angle brackets to mean the
entry as a convention. We are referring to the actual entries that exist in
the list. Michael noted we do use the angle brackets in the IBIS
specification, such as for <stem> and <terminal lines>. We are fairly
consistent on this. Randy noted an issue on page 26 with a missing angle
bracket. Michael asked if the word "entry" should be contained the in the
brackets. Bob replied we are not consistent if we include the word "entry" in
the brackets. Arpad noted we might want to check on signal_name_entry.
Michael asked if we should remove the word "entry" in this case and the
bus_label_entry case. Bob stated we also have qualifier_entry. Michael asked
if the issue is with the underscore. Arpad commented the underscore tends to
indicate it is a reserved word. Randy commented we have the same issue in the
Interconnect Model section. Michael stated we used the underscore to note
there should be no white space.
Michael will send out EMD draft14 [AR].
Next Meeting:
The next meeting will be June 17.
Randy moved to adjourn. Arpad seconded. The meeting adjourned without
objection.
================================================================================
Bin List:
EMD Comments to be Resolved:
(See BIRD202.1 tracking spreadsheet)
IBIS-ISS Parser:
- IBIS-ISS parser scope document