Attendees:
Mark Hahn, Cadence (Chair)
Tom Dewey, Mentor Graphics
Ibna Faruque, Synopsys
Vassilios Gerousis, Motorola
Steve Grout, Sematech
Greg Schulte, Ambit
Jim Swift, IBM
New action items:
Who When What
---------- ------ --------
1. Mark 10/13 Set the web site to make the latest copy of the
taxonomy directly accessible
Open action items:
Who When What
---------- ------ --------
1. Jin, Jim 8/25 Discuss PVT-dependent constraints and relationship
to conceptual model
-> Need to reassign
2. Jim 9/15 Investigate IBM strawman possibility
-> 9/29
3. Jim 10/13 Add operating conditions to the taxonomy
4. Mark 10/13 Schedule a face to face meeting at ICCAD
Closed action items:
Who When What
---------- ------ --------
1. Mark 9/29 Schedule a teleconference with Steve Schulz,
Vassilios to discuss SLDL relationship
2. Mark 9/29 Prepare a more detailed breakdown of tasks
and schedule
3. Greg 9/15 Add description of min/max delay constraints,
-> 9/29 boundary conditions specified on internal pins
to taxonomy
Next Meeting:
The next meeting will be a teleconference on
Tuesday, 10/13/98, from 9-11 am PDT.
Details:
1. Review progress on action items
No progress so far on the IBM strawman possibility or adding the
operating conditions to the taxonomy.
Mark and Vassilios discussed the SLDL relationship with
Steve Schulz, and scheduled a followup teleconference with
other key people in SLDL for later in the week. One possible
relationship would be to divide the work along the lines of
language syntax and domain-specific semantics, where SLDL
would focus more on the general syntax, and DC-WG would focus
more on the semantics.
2. Discuss boundary parasitics section in the taxonomy
Steve Grout went through the boundary parasitics description.
We had some trouble due to different versions of the document.
There needs to be a clear distinction between
- library data common to all designs
- data which is design-dependent and describes the designer's
intent for the environment in which the design will operate
The current description classifies the data for the designer's
intent according to the task the designer is trying to perform.
This leads to a lot of duplication, so it would be better to
classify the data into distinct physical properties.
3. Discuss updates to the timing exceptions section in the taxonomy
Greg updated a number of things. There are several additional
changes required:
- the path delay constraint shouldn't have from_clock and to_clock
arguments
- there should be a way to specify the equivalent of
the Ambit set_data_required_time command for arrival times
- the internal and external versions of arrival times should
be merged, as should required times
- tags should be added to the arguments for different constraints,
including the external driver specification
4. Discuss task breakdown and schedule
Steve Grout suggested using the IEEE standard templates but
substituting a non-Ariel font (Times Roman) for better readability.
Lessons from the OLA rollout:
- prioritization of demo features is important
- there should be check points prior to DAC as part of a full-fledged
plan
- it would be good define the DAC demo features, flow, and benefits
very early. A position paper on the benefits would help convince
companies to participate in the demo.
We should plan to have demos in the OVI booth as well as in the
participating companies' booths, and possibly in the Si2 and EDAC
booths as well.
There should be activities at some of the conferences leading
up to DAC, such as Date '99 and ASP-DAC '99.
Thanks,
Mark
-- Mark Hahn phone: (408) 428-5399 Architect, Deep Submicron Business Unit fax: (408) 428-5959 Cadence Design Systems email: mhahn@cadence.com