Subject: RE: IBIS comments to the EDIF committee

From: Stephen Peters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 09:33:32 -0700

Hello David:

    Regarding your questions below I'm going to give you 
my interpretation, but I think the simulator vendor folks
need to give you the final word.

  1.  Yes, an IBIS file should be associated with a 'part' rather
than each component instance.

  2.  The RLC values we are talking about refer to descrete components.
A board my have descrete resistor, capacitor and inductor components 
connected as part of a net.  The simulator vendors must have a way to
clearly and uniquely extract from the EDIF description the values of
these components (i.e. 50 ohms, 20pF).

               Stephen

> On  Thu, 23 May 1996 11:06:10 David Wiens wrote:

Stephen,

In working up the EDIF proposal, I came up with a few things I want run
past you...

1. In EDIF, a 'component' is an instance of a 'part'. Given the choice,
I'm assuming we want to attach IBIS models to parts, not components.

2. Regarding the issue of one location for RLC values...
    - There aren't ANY places I can find within EDIF that define RLC, so
      the only way to add them would be using the 'property' name/value type.
      Unfortunately, this can
      be done under about any element type.
    - The real point I'm missing is why we care about RLCs within EDIF
      if we can properly point at IBIS and get them there for package and die
      pins.

David Wiens

---

From: "Wiens, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 11:58:34 -0500

Stephen,

You're correct about RLCs for discretes...I had active parts on the
brain for some
reason. I will propose a location for storage of these values, since
there isn't one
now. Is there anything else other than the following that would possibly
need to be
described for a 'physical' netlist :
- active model (IBIS link)
- passive model (RLC values in EDIF)
- physical topology (layers, traces/vias, part geometries, etc. in EDIF)

Note that we don't have to be all-inclusive here...but if we don't get
something into
the spec now we will end up adding generic name/value properties that we
can't
require anyone to recognize.

David Wiens

>----------
>From: 	Stephen Peters[SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent: 	Thursday, May 23, 1996 10:33 AM
>To: 	Wiens, David
>Cc: 	[email-masked]
>Subject: 	RE: IBIS comments to the EDIF committee
>
>Hello David:
>

---

From: Stephen Peters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 10:16:36 -0700

Hello David:

    Yes, that looks like the major points.  Thanks again for your
    effort in getting comments back to the EDIF committee.

              Regards,
              Stephen

Stephen,

David Wiens