Re: Verilog-AMS meeting minutes - 17th April 2007

Xavier,

Sorry I must have missed out.

It would have been good if you had responded to my original email that I 
sent to Stu about the changes (along with attached emails), before the 
call about 3 days back and we could have had a look at that. There were 
so many comments sent by email i could have easily missed it out.

Its not going to make it to draft4 unless its a minor error at this 
stage. I guess the slew might be easy to put in draft4, should not be a 
problem. This is with regards to negative slope where it should be 
mentioned "opposite" instead of "inverse". If there are no objections, 
which i haven't heard any till now, should be easy fix.

Attention Stu: Can you make this correction in draft4 please with 
regards to the slew argument. This is in section 4.5.9 page 73 where we 
say if max_neg_slew_rate is not specified it defaults to the "inverse" 
of the max_pos_slew_rate. I have attached the relevant email from Xavier.

I think the $finish/final_step there was a lengthy discussion but I am 
not sure whether there was a final proposal as such. If you can 
summarize the discussions on reflector and send out a proposal for 
change we can review it post draft-4.

Regards,
Sri

Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 09:46 +0530, Sri Chandra wrote:
> [...]
>> Some of the items mentioned in these various emails sent out was already 
>> captured as part of the meeting minutes and hence not detailed here. 
>> Other emails that were sent out is planned to be taken up post LRM2.3 
>> and depending on the item, will be either taken up by the mixed signal 
>> subcommittee or in the main stream committee for SystemVerilog AMS 
>> integration.
> 
> I also sent an email about slew arguments description (March 21st) and
> another about final_step (March 26th) I would have liked to be part of
> 2.3. Do you mean they won't make it ?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Xav
> 
> 

-- 
Srikanth Chandrasekaran
Design Technology (Tools Development)
Freescale Semiconductor Inc.
T:+91-120-439 5000 p:x3824 f: x5199

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

attached mail follows:

Hi,

just a little remark about the slew filter: when absent, the negative
slope is said to be the "inverse" of the positive slope, whereas it
should probably be the "opposite".

	Xav


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.