errata/526: PROPOSAL - 7.8 "conflicting strength is ignored" ??

From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
Date: Thu Feb 12 2004 - 07:23:52 PST

  • Next message: Steven Sharp: "errata/540: Re: errata/540: Re: errata/540: Misuse of term reg in 17.2.4.4"

    In 7.8,

    CHANGE

    "The signals that these sources place on nets shall have pull strength in the
    absence of a strength specification. If conflicting strength specification is
    declared, it shall be ignored."

    TO

    "The signals that these sources place on nets shall have pull strength in the
    absence of a strength specification. If there is
    a <i> strength1 </i> specification on a <b> pullup </b> source or
    a <i> strength0 </i> specification on a <b> pulldown </b> source,
    the signals shall have the strength specified.

    A <i> strength0 </i> specification on a <b> pullup </b> source and
    a <i> strength1 </i> specification on a <b> pulldown </b> source
    shall be ignored."

    CHANGE the last sentence in 7.8 from

    "In this example, the p1 instance drives neta and the p2 instance drives netb."

    TO

    "In this example, the p1 instance drives neta and the p2 instance drives netb
    with <b> strong </b> strength."

    In 7.1.2, at the end of the paragraph discussing pullups and pulldowns,
    add "See 7.8 for more details."

    http://boydtechinc.com/cgi-bin/issueproposal.pl?cmd=view&database=default&pr=526

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 12 2004 - 07:24:01 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.