From: Mirmak, Michael Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 8:09 PM To: IBIS-Interconnect (ibis-interconn@freelists.org) Subject: Minutes, Nov. 28 IBIS-Interconnect Task Group and Dec. 5 Agenda ====================================================================== IBIS INTERCONNECT TASK GROUP MEETING http://www.eda.org/ibis/interconnect_wip/ Mailing list: ibis-interconn@freelists.org ====================================================================== Next meeting: Dec. 5, 2012 8 AM US Pacific Daylight Time Agenda: - Attendance - Call for Patents - Agenda and Opens - Usage Models and Coverage Needed in Interconnect Solutions (S. Pytel) - EMD 1.0 Comments (all) - Next Meetings’ Schedule/Agenda For international numbers, please contact Michael Mirmak. ......................................................................................................................................... Join online meeting https://meet.intel.com/michael.mirmak/QZ193W0C First online meeting? [!OC([1033])!] ......................................................................................................................................... <--- Reservationless Bridge – Do not edit or remove --- 916-356-2663, 8-356-2663, Bridge: 2, Passcode: 8625431 Speed dialer: inteldialer://2,8625431 -----------------------------------------------------------------> Note: in case of issues with Lync we will use the WebEx noted at the bottom of this message ====================================================================== Attendees, Nov. 28 Agilent Technologies Radek Biernacki* ANSYS Luis Armenta*, Steve Pytel* Cadence Design Systems Brad Brim Intel Michael Mirmak* Mentor Graphics Arpad Muranyi* Micron Technology Justin Butterfield*, Randy Wolff* Signal Integrity Software Walter Katz* Teraspeed Consulting Group Bob Ross* Minutes No patents were declared. No opens were raised. Walter Katz showed his “morphed” EMD specification, edited from the EBD portions of IBIS. The document is available on the website. The EBD format as EMD now explicitly supports coupling, and explicitly mentions Touchstone and IBIS- ISS support for interconnect descriptions. A small insertion loss at Nyquist is how the electrical path is detected. Arpad Muranyi asked whether “visibility” is a reference to physical pins? Walter responded that EBD already describes “visible” pin. Discussion needed to clarify the “visibility” concept. The EMD 1.0 Root/Branch/Leaf approach is different than that used for AMI Parameter Files, as the latter contains extra material. Arpad suggested that the EMD specification draft should define “token string”, as well as other terms. Walter observed that names as used in EBD files maintained, but without brackets and spaces. Radek Biernacki asked about the difference between the module pin list and module pins. Walter answered that these are the same thing; the different references are simply typographical errors. Radek continued, asking whether pin list leaves are name, value pairs. Walter confirmed this. Michael Mirmak asked whether a leaf may contain multiple individual values? Walter responded yes, noting that a leaf has no sub-leaves Arpad asked whether we only allowing “u” as a reference designator prefix. Bob Ross and Walter answered that this is just a name. Michael asked, to clarify, whether leaf values are not sub-parsable (meaning that each value stands alone, unlike SPICE). Walter responded that leaves may have multiple values. Bob stated that the team can’t say EMD replaces EBD; some features of EBD need continuation in EMD, such as EBD pointing to another EBD. Walter’s intent is for EMD to supersede EBD but Bob notes this is an industry decision as to actual usage. Additional supporting documentation is needed for connectors and cables; Walter pointed out that dot notation is used here. Radek suggested that the dot notation is referring to the hierarchy of subcircuits; first three examples under “Connections” definition use this approach, but connectors may need additional contextual rules. On Interconnect, the phrase Model Connection Protocols is used but without comments; individual branches are included pointing to files of IBIS-ISS or Touchstone type, and connections by *port*, then individual connection. Steve Pytel voiced a concern that the use of specific “MCP” phrasing may confuse the industry. An alternate name was requested. Arpad asked whether the author can skip port numbers (have no explicit connections listed for a particular port). Walter confirmed this. Radek’s help is requested to correctly document this. Radek: you cannot instantiate with an incomplete list of nodes. Arpad: SPICE allows instantiation without connecting all the nodes. Radek: meaning open? This is not consistent with the Touchstone case, but is certainly an option. Walter: key question is whether a parameter tree can represent everything in EBD. This specification draft demonstrates that, plus includes model-to-model (formerly MCP) connections. Arpad noted that EMD as proposed seems to be taking over the central focus or functionality, in that it instantiates the package and maybe the on-die interconnect. This represents a hierarchy change. Michael responded that this was good point, but not the one at hand; parameter trees as a format, as a yes or no question (other than a question of taste) is the focus of the group at present. Steve noted that two other proposals are yet to come. Radek summarized that the hierarchy and the end of the structure is explicitly stated and that the parameter tree is fairly equivalent to EBD conceptually. It may be slightly harder to read/write by humans. Arpad stated that would prefer a common set of rules between IBIS-AMI parameter files and EMD files; would prefer consistency. Many different parsers may be needed to address the differences. Walter replied that IBIS-AMI has both contextual and syntactical rules. EMD actually follows the syntactical rules of AMI so long as “” around strings is only required when (), tabs, spaces, etc. are used. Proposals from Steve may be different than EMD, in that they will address an industry need for interconnect for die-to-die, die-to-interposer structures. Steve to show examples next time. Michael pointed out need to stop strategic discussions and focus on actual development details. Due to industry specification development rules, the specific proposals being described may not be available for public discussion for some weeks. ====================================================================== In case of Lync issues only, we will switch to WebEx as noted below. Meeting Number: 732 940 715 Meeting Password: IBIS ------------------------------------------------------- To join this meeting (Now from mobile devices!) ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://sisoft.webex.com/sisoft/j.php?J=732940715&PW=NNWY2NmRmZTY0 2. If requested, enter your name and email address. 3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: IBIS 4. Click "Join". 5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen. ------------------------------------------------------- Audio conference information ------------------------------------------------------- Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3208 Access code:732 940 715 http://www.webex.com IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation.