Re: idt reset issue

Sri,
    Yes, I think I can make it. I have created a proposal and Geoffrey
posted it on the website:
http://www.eda-stds.org/verilog-ams/htmlpages/public-docs/idt-proposal.pdf

-Ken

Sri Chandra wrote:
> Hi Ken,
> 
> Would you be available 9pm Pacific this thursday (Dec 7th) to discuss
> the idt proposal along with the proposed changes. If you can send the
> proposal across before the meeting that will be good.
> 
> cheers,
> Sri
> 
> Sri Chandra wrote:
>> Ken,
>>
>> By the way just thought will let you know that the timings of the
>> meeting has changed (from this week onwards). Now-a-days the meetings
>> are on thursday evenings at 9pm pacific.
>>
>> Please go ahead and send out a proposed change to the committee based
>> on the feedback that you received on the reflector. We can review that
>> as part of the meeting. Since idt is a very key item, and a fairly
>> major feature in Verilog-A quiet widely used, I would be very
>> uncomfortable changing the LRM without actually having a live
>> discussion in the call. So hopefully you would be able to attend one
>> of the upcoming meetings at this new time and we can discuss the new
>> document that you plan to post.
>>
>> Hope that is agreeable.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sri
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Ken Kundert wrote:
>>> Sri,
>>>     I have an on-going conflict that prevents me from calling into the
>>> meetings. I have published a description of the problem and the desired
>>> behavior. There has been some discussion on the reflector and nobody has
>>> presented any objections. Perhaps I should just send out a proposed
>>> change to the LRM and see what everyone thinks?
>>>
>>> -Ken
>>>
>>> Sri Chandra wrote:
>>>> Ken,
>>>>
>>>> I haven't been able to attend the recent calls but I hope to be back
>>>> online from this week onwards. I dont think this issue has been
>>>> discused
>>>> in the recent meetings. The committee has been reviewing independent
>>>> chapters and we are currently in the process of reviewing chapter 7
>>>> being edited by Marq Kole.
>>>>
>>>> The last I remember in the reflector was you were planning to present
>>>> this item to go over it to the committee but you were unable to attend
>>>> the meeting. If you are available and if you can present the
>>>> proposal at
>>>> one of the the committee meetings that will be great and we can
>>>> schedule
>>>> it in one of the upcoming calls.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Sri
>>>>
>>>> Ken Kundert wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>
>