Re: paramsets - statistics

Geoffrey,

1) Statistics:
    It would be good to get the statistics into the proposal. I don't
know what the restrictions are for OOMR's but, the statistics block is a
special type of module (with only statistical parameters). Maybe we can
allow OOMR's into the statistics block.

    In addition to keywords statistics, process, and mismatch, we would
need: matched and correlate.

2) Hierarchical attributes: m and n, are important. Other's do not seem
to be. I have never seen them in side a device. Should they be
restricted to paramsets? Where are they typically used? Note, only n
and m have clear rules that can be automatically applied. For others,
the rules are process dependent.

Ilya

Geoffrey.Coram wrote:

>I was reviewing the paramsets proposal to see if the
>excerpt I sent out recently covered all the aspects.
>It does not: sections 2.9 - 2.12 are missing.
>
>2.9 and 2.10 deal with Monte-Carlo and statistics,
>and require the addition of three keywords,
>statistics, process, and mismatch. Also, the
>statistical values are stored in variables and
>accessed through out-of-module references. I can't
>find OOMRs documented; I'd heard that they cannot
>be used to access variables.
>
>2.11 and 2.12 deal with hierarchical attributes
>and layout descriptions (m,n,x,y,angle used for
>mismatch). We're still waiting for a revised
>proposal on mfactor.
>
>In the conference call on June 1, we decided that
>the LRM for CM was not complete without paramsets
>and mfactor. My question is: with mfactor but
>without the items above, is this a complete LRM?
>Is it at all likely that we could get the rest
>of the items approved?
>
>My sense is that verilog-a is not useable for CM
>without a .model card; we need the basic functionality.
>I think the other features would be nice, but they
>haven't been thought through as much, and they could
>go in a future revision of the LRM.
>
>-Geoffrey
>
>
Received on Fri Jun 4 14:23:21 2004