Replies: 2 comments 2 replies
-
Yes, the design kits concept would be useful and technically possible to implement. Something could be implemented based on existing library approach. You may also look how Qucs-S support in IHP PDK is done: https://github.com/IHP-GmbH/IHP-Open-PDK Currently Qucs-S doesn't support callbacks on Library level. It's unclear how to better implement this. I am not planning to add such extension in the near future but certainly accept a patch implementing this function. At first point we can draft a plan what is needed to implement design kits support within Qucs-S. You may also look at Qucs/qucs#659 This adds XML-defined system devices for old Qucs. May be useful for future extensions. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@mkghub maybe we can move the discussion to this thread #876. Although it is about IHP-Open-PDK the extensions should remain PDK agnostic. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
How about introducing the concept of design-kit? Then we can load and unload design-kits for each process and do the simulation conveniently? For schematic simulations, we need corresponding device symbols, spice models, and a function for netlisting. And some callback functions to calculate some parameters for each device symbol. If interface standards related this items are defined, and some functions for importing each design-kits can be added?
Maybe we can make skywater-130 open design-kit for Qucs-s first?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions