I found the following from PTF meeting minutes:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:40:26 -0400
From: Charles Dawson <chas@cadence.com>
To: PTF <ptf@boyd.com>
Subject: PTF meeting minutes for 8/23/2004
4. Discussed new business:
- PTF 530
Chas commented that it looked good to him. Francoise
had comments, but they look like they've been resolved.
Francoise wanted to know if we should specify the order
that the arguments to the timing check should be returned.
Chas commented that there are other areas, such as ports
and args to systfs where we do not specify the order, yet
the order is pretty obvious (and therefore has not been a
problem). Francoise took an action to add a new PTF item
on to decide on what to do about the order issue.
PASSED
- Francoise to file PTF item on vpi_control() issue.
Filed PTF 605. Discussed. Chas brought up that the wording
in 27.3 on vpi_control() was not completely accurate.
Francoise's proposed change was dependent on this inaccuracy.
Francoise was concerned that if someone later fixed the
inaccuracy, her change here would be invalidated. The
consensus was that the inaccuracy was not critical, and should
therefore not be fixed.
PASSED.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:05:32 -0400
From: Charles Dawson <chas@cadence.com>
To: PTF <ptf@boyd.com>
Subject: PTF meeting minutes for 9/20/2004
4. Discussed new business:
- PTF 622
JimV/Steve. PTF 622 PASSED as proposed. Chas will work with
JimV to get the database updated with the proposal. Everyone
will read the proposal to make sure it is the same as what
we discussed.
- PTF 623
JimV had made a proposal for PTF 530 which solved the same
problem in diagram 26.6.17. Chas made a proposal and sent
a diagram that illustrates the change.
JimV/JimG PASSED as proposed
- PTF 329
Chas had tried it and it works okay in NCV. Tapati will try
with her simulators. JimG/JimV. PASSED.
Received on Tue Nov 16 12:09:15 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 16 2004 - 12:09:18 PST