errata/526: Re: errata/526: 7.8 "conflicting strength is ignored" ??

From: Steven Sharp (sharp@cadence.com)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 13:20:00 PST

  • Next message: Stefen Boyd: "Re: P1364-2005/D3 - updated"

    The following reply was made to PR errata/526; it has been noted by GNATS.

    From: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com>
    To: sharp@cadence.com, Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
    Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com
    Subject: Re: errata/526: 7.8 "conflicting strength is ignored" ??
    Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:17:13 -0500 (EST)

    >But that is simply illegal, both according to the text (7.1.2) and the BNF
    >(Syntax 7-1). So maybe it was intended to refer to the strength0 part of a
    >(strength0, strength1) specification for a pullup (and opposite for
    >pulldown)?
     
     That makes sense. In that case, the extra strength is completely ignored,
     as the strange sentence says. Not matching the drive direction isn't
     really a conflict, but someone might have used that term anyway for this
     mismatching direction.
     
     This particular text does not appear in the original XL manual or the
     OVI 2.0 LRM, so it was presumably added during the IEEE standardization
     process. Maybe somebody from the 1364-1995 days can remember something.
     
     Steven Sharp
     sharp@cadence.com
     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 13:20:02 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.