Re: Clarification question on port direction

The underlying standard (1364-????) *requires* the declarations
(I have a vague sense there are other things that can go inside
the parentheses, and thus it's important to declare which ones
are ports and which are the other things).

The other tools don't ignore the declarations, they only ignore
the specifics, ie, whether it is input/output/inout.  And probably,
a rigorous AMS simulator may actually enforce the directionality;
almost all analog electrical ports should be inout.  Any that aren't
may end up being caught by some simulator in the future.

I say "almost" because "input" and "output" might actually make sense
for a controlled source.

The order of declarations is not prescribed by the LRM; it is a 
bug in one AMS simulator and hence the analog simulator from the
same vendor issues a warning.  I mentioned this just in case 
people trip over it.

-Geoffrey


"Muranyi, Arpad" wrote:
> 
> Geoffrey,
> 
> I am not sure that I know what "signal-flow models really are, but
> if I understand it correctly from the replies I got so far, the
> direction makes only sense for digital ports, and not for
> analog electrical ports.  If this is true, could we put something
> into the LRM to state that for analog ports (if they exist) we do
> not need to (or should not) use the direction declarations?  After
> all, if tools ignore it, and if it is meaningless, why require them?
> 
> Also, if the order of the declarations is important, we should
> perhaps mention that too in the LRM.  One of the two tools we
> tried will take them in any order, but another one would give
> errors.  Which one is correct?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Arpad