Re: idt reset issue

From: Marq Kole <marq.kole_at_.....> Date: Thu Dec 07 2006 - 22:22:09 PST · This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 07 2006 - 22:24:33 PST

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

>>

> 

[attachment "ken.vcf" deleted by Marq Kole/EHV/RESEARCH/PHILIPS]