The fact that we can even have a reasonable discus...
# gf180mcut
Tim 'mithro' Ansell
07/28/2022, 2:27 AM
The fact that we can even have a reasonable discussion about the names and compare them between skywater and gf also indicates that things are moving in the right direction - https://bit.ly/gf180mcu-names
🌍 1
a
Amro Tork
07/28/2022, 2:35 AM@Tim 'mithro' Ansell I don't prefer to change the naming of the primitive devices as each foundry device set is different. I understand the intent of what you are trying to do. There are are a lot of stuff tied to the primitive device names. If we change it, we have to make sure that we have changed and tested everything like simulation models, LVS, netlists that uses those primitives, etc... I was hesitant to write this. But just wanted to let you know. @Tim Edwards @mkk what do you guys think? If you decided to make those changes, we will do them for you.
m
mkk
07/28/2022, 12:54 PM
@Amro Tork Please go ahead and do a thorough text compare on the files - that would do it then we can run the spice tests again
mkk
07/28/2022, 12:55 PM
@Amro Tork although i mentioned we could hold and decide later after everything else is clean, I now see that we need to do it before the PDK gets used by a large number of users - then the change will be messy.
mkk
07/28/2022, 12:58 PM
I would rather do it now. I understand the risk. I also declare that I supported “no change of model names” until today as I can see it the argument of consistency. Given that we will be doing many PDK’s inconsistencies will be a problem