RE: SPICE compatibility issues

Arpad,

I am assuming the various flavours of spice will differ not much in the behaviour but more so in the name of the primitives in the different spice implementation including the parameter names that they take in etc. If that is the case then we can hopefully standardize on a Verilog-AMS library for the spice models. The reason we had to include the tool dependency when including spice primitives inside Verilog-AMS for this reason. We didn't want the language to be seen as standardizing spice names that have already been implemented in various circuit simulators. 

But, if you think there is lot of difference in the different spice flavours apart from syntax, names and naming conventions then it might become difficult to have a standardized Verilog-AMS library. Having  multiple libraries corresponding to various flavours of spice would be very unmaintanable.

Regards,
Sri

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-verilog-ams@eda.org [mailto:owner-verilog-ams@eda.org] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, 27 July 2005 7:26 AM
To: verilog-ams@eda.org
Subject: RE: SPICE compatibility issues


The more I think of this, the more I am beginning to wonder.

It seems that the purpose of the SPICE compatibility in the
LRM was to make it easy to (re)use the already available
SPICE elements in Verilog-AMS netlists without having to rewrite them as Verilog-AMS modules.  However, the LRM clearly states that these types of "Verilog-AMS models" will basically become tool dependent.

I think it is a wonderful thing that people are willing
to make public donations of their work and offer libraries which contain SPICE equivalents written in Verilog-AMS. However, it seems that a library would still remain SPICE flavor specific, so we would need multiple libraries to cover the different kinds of SPICE flavors that exist.

Is the proposal suggesting multiple libraries corresponding
to the various SPICE flavors?

Arpad ===========================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-verilog-ams@eda.org [mailto:owner-verilog-ams@eda.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Cameron
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 2:26 PM
To: Jonathan Sanders
Cc: Marq Kole; verilog-ams@eda.org
Subject: Re: SPICE compatibility issues

...snip...

I think creating a library of standard Verilog-AMS modules based on the 
SPICE models makes good sense at this point in time. Netlists should be 
portable, tools that currently produce SPICE netlists will have to 
produce Verilog-AMS in the future. Also, I don't think developing a 
validation suite makes as much sense without some way of limiting the 
scope to what people will actually be using - i.e. the initial 
validation suite would validate implementation/execution for the 
standard libraries.

...snip...