The Need to Exceed

FMF recently had a major IC company contact us to say they wanted to do business with us and have us begin modeling some of their components. We had been trying to sell our services to this company for nine years so I needed to know why they were coming around now. The answer was simple – their customers were asking for FMF models. The nine years of marketing meant nothing to them, it was their customers’ requests they paid attention to. This is as it should be.

Every company that desires to survive and grow needs to listen to its customers. FMF has two classes of customers: the IC companies that pay us; and, their customers who use our models to design-in the IC companies’ parts. You are most likely one of the later.

As an FMF customer, we need your feedback. We need to know what you like and don’t like about our models. How is the accuracy and the performance? How is the ease of use? What can we do to make your board-level verification job easier?

If you will make the effort to give us this feedback, and tell us your expectations, we promise to try to exceed them.

4 Responses to “The Need to Exceed”

  1. gnuarm says:

    You asked for feedback, so here goes… I don’t know how others like to use models, but I prefer a certain amount of documentation. I am new here, so maybe I just have not found it yet. I am looking at using the ak5393 ADC VHDL model. I see that the analog inputs are provided as using real numbers. However, I have to reverse engineer the code to figure out what the input range is for a full scale. Turns out it is not the same as the chip, it is +-10 volts rather than +-2.45 volts.

    This may seem like a nit, but with no documentation that I could find, I am sure there are many other questions on these models that can only be answered by digging into the code.

    Also, as a first time user, it would be great to have an example program that I could look at to see everything required to make use of these models. Even better would be a short how-to just to help with the initial learning curve.

    Perhaps I should have started off by saying, thanks for even doing this. I am impressed with the general quality of the models and even their mere existence. Thanks!

  2. munden says:

    gnuarm,

    Thank you for your comment.

    We assume the engineer using a model will also have the datasheet for the component. That said, it would not be all that difficult to add a few more comments that spell out some key specifications. Would that be sufficient or do you have something more extensive in mind?

    Have you seen our white papers at http://www.FreeModelFoundry.com/papers.html ? Do you think it has enough to get someone started? If not, please describe what you would like to see. Since I have been using these models for so long, it is difficult to see things from the perspective of a newcomer. Suggestions are very welcomed.

  3. gnuarm says:

    Wow, that was a quick reply. I see that I should have made my way to the white paper link first. Talk about drinking from the fire hose! I’ll have to wade through some of that. Thanks.

    About the model, I guess the first thing I tried to verify is either not correct, or maybe I am not looking at the code correctly. I see that the assignments for the analog inputs are like this.

    LchData := INTEGER((AINL – AINLNeg) / 10.0 * 8388607.0);–16#7FFFFF#

    This says to me that the analog input range is +10 to -10 volts. But the data sheet says…

    well, I can’t copy the line because the data sheet is copy protected… (grumble, grumble).

    But it says the input range is +2.45 to -2.45 volts with 0.15 volts of tolerance.

    So is the model supposed to be accurate on the analog input range, or am I missing something?

  4. munden says:

    The code you quote does indeed look suspicious. I have asked the original author of the model to review it.

    I suggest further discussion of this model be moved to the forum area where it will be easier for other interested parties to find.

Leave a Reply