RE: idt reset issue

Ken,

I agree that the reset feature of idt should work as
you described in your document.  I am just curious,
is this only a tool implementation problem, or is this
an LRM problem?  I didn't see anything in your document
on why the description in the LRM is ambiguous, and I
didn't see a suggestion for how to correct that.  Do
you have a proposal for a better description?

Thanks,

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

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-verilog-ams@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-verilog-ams@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Ken Kundert
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:26 AM
To: VerilogAMS Reflector
Subject: Re: idt reset issue

Sri,
     Was there any decision made on the idt issue? Would you like me to
a cut at refining the description of idt in the LRM to avoid the
ambiguity in its behavior?

-Ken

Ken Kundert wrote:
> All,
>    I apologize for missing the call this morning. It turns out that
> Thursday mornings are just too busy for me to attend.
> 
> I have updated the document to include an model that patterns the
> desired behavior. You can find the updated version at
> http://designers-guide.org/private/vams-extensions/idt-issue.pdf
> 
> Also, I would like to offer the use the my online forum for use by the
> Verilog-AMS committee. We used it when defining the compact model
> extensions and I found it to be a very convenient way to carrying on the
> conversations about particular issues. It naturally separates the
> discussion threads and makes them easy to follow. If you wanted to do
> this, I would give you a private board, so only invitees would be
> allowed to see the board or contribute.
> 
> -Ken
> 
> 
> Geoffrey.Coram wrote:
>> Resending for Ken Kundert; original message bounced (too long).
>> Attachment has been saved as
>> http://www.verilog.org/verilog-ams/htmlpages/public-docs/idt-issue.pdf
>>
>>
>> ----------------- Original Message -------------
>> All,
>>     I'd like to join the meeting tomorrow and discuss the reset feature
>> of the idt function. I have not had much luck using this feature through
>> the years, and recently had a situation where I really needed it.
>> Unfortunately, I found the Cadence implementation unsuitable once again,
>> and when I dug in to it I found the LRM silent on critical aspects of
>> this feature. I have attached a very short document that illustrates the
>> issue and proposes what I believe to be the desirable behavior. If you
>> all agree I will work on coming up with the needed modifications to the LRM.
>>
>> -Ken