Re: Optional PMA interface (OIF)
Henning, et. al.
This proposal sounds OK on the surface. I have one concern:
If the XBI RefCLK is optional, and if the option is implemented, only one CLK
frequency should be specified in order to foster interoperability. This appears
to be the intention of the proposal. Note also that means one CLK frequency for
the LAN PHY and another for the WAN PHY.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
Henning Lysdal wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> Oops sorry for this delayed response. I can support your proposal.
>
> Are you working with Stuart to get this into his presentation?
>
> Regards,
>
> Henning
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Alexander <Tom_Alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: 'Henning Lysdal' <lysdal@xxxxxxxxxx>; Stuart Robinson
> <Stuart_Robinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <vipul.bhatt@xxxxxxxxxxx>; '10G Ethernet
> Reflector' <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 8:44 PM
> Subject: RE: Optional PMA interface (OIF)
>
> > Vipul, Henning, Stu,
> >
> > I would recommend that we do the following:
> >
> > - eliminate the reference clock as a REQUIRED
> > item in the XBI interface, leaving it as
> > an implementation-specific issue
> > - suggest a 156.25 MHz reference clock in an
> > informative appendix (one is needed anyway
> > to deal with system timing and clocking
> > issues that are implementation dependent)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > - Tom Alexander
> > PMC-Sierra, Inc.
> >
> > Vipul Bhatt wrote:
> >
> ============================================================================
> > ======
> >
> > Henning,
> >
> > This is a very sensible proposal and I support it. Instead of leaving it
> > open, I would prefer that we specify or
> > suggest the frequency of the slower reference clock (156.25 MHz or 78.125
> > MHz).
> >
> > Vipul
> >
> >
> > vipul.bhatt@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > (408)542-4113
> >
> >
> >
> > ==================
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Henning Lysdal
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 12:37 AM
> > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > Cc: paw@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: Optional PMA interface (OIF)
> >
> > All,
> >
> > In Ottawa Stuart Robinson presented a proposal to paste the "OIF
> > interface" (SFI-4 interface,
> > OIF1999.102), see
> > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/may00/robinson_1_0500.pdf
> > into
> > .3ae
> >
> > The idea of reusing the work done by the OIF and the devices
> developed
> > to meet their specification
> > agrees perfectly with the cost and time-to-market objectives of
> .3ae.
> > However, in the LAN PHY case,
> > a minor change has to be made in the 10GE version of the OIF
> > interface:
> >
> > The OIF specifies both data and clocks at the 16-bit interface. The
> > reference clock is specified to be
> > 622.08MHz (for OC-192 rate). In the LAN case (64b66b) this
> translates
> > to 644.53MHz. Thus, the
> > clock-multiplier ratio is x16. The specification allows other
> optional
> > reference clocks e.g. 311MHz
> > (x32).
> >
> > In my mind these reference clocks are too fast for 10GE. Fast
> refck's
> > means bulky and expensive
> > oscillators. In addition using 644.53MHz refck adds an entirely new
> > clock-domain in the PHY,
> > requiring additional clock tolerance compensation (see below). For
> > Ethernet we obviously need
> > cheap and small.
> >
> > If the OIF interface is included in 802.3ae as an optional PMA
> > interface we should do one of the
> > following:
> > 1) not specify the reference clock allowing this to be
> implementation
> > specific
> > 2) specify a slower reference clock
> >
> > Actually I like both options. Those who like option 2, please
> consider
> > the following:
> >
> > In a serial LAN PHY you need the following clocks:
> > 312.5MHz or 156.25MHz for XGMII (or 3.125GHz for XAUI)
> > 156.25MHz for the 64 and 66 bit wide interfaces in the 64b66b CODEC
> > (PCS)
> > 644.53MHz for the 16-bit (OIF) PMA interface
> > 10.3125GHz (line rate)
> > some of these clocks are needed in both a receive and a transmit
> > version.
> >
> > The OIF specification implies that the 644.53MHz interface clock
> > should be sourced from the
> > SerDes. Thus the SerDes generates both transmit and receive version
> of
> > the 644.53MHz and the
> > 10.3125GHz clocks.
> >
> > Looking at the list above, 156.25MHz becomes an obvious choice as
> > reference clock. This implies
> > that the SerDes clock-multiplier should be x66, requiring a 10GE
> > specific version of the OIF-style
> > SerDes.
> >
> > If you want to implement a serial LAN PHY using a "pure" OIF SerDes
> > (644.53MHz refck), the
> > 156.25MHz PCS clock should be generated by the PCS chip or sourced
> > from an additional crystal.
> > The former requires an extra PLL on-board the PCS chip and the later
> > increases device count and
> > requires clock tolerance compensation.
> >
> > Thus, either way you're in trouble. You can choose to specify a
> > 644.53MHz reference and reuse OIF
> > SerDes. This complicates PCS design and in some implementations
> > require an additional crystal
> > reference. You can also choose to let the SerDes do the job, but
> then
> > it is no longer a standard OIF
> > SerDes.
> >
> > Being a SerDes designer, I think that the handling of this odd-ratio
> > clock rate conversion is best
> > done in the SerDes. From a total PHY cost and complexity perspective
> > adding an extra crystal
> > reference (in addtion to an already expensive one) or generating
> > 156.25MHz from 644.53MHz inside
> > a CMOS PCS chip makes little sense. The only thing gained would be
> the
> > ability to reuse OIF
> > SerDes. Modifying OIF SerDes to include Ethernet specific clock
> > generation is a minor task that
> > will give us a lower complexity (cost, power) LAN PHY.
> >
> > THE BOTTOM LINE:
> > Specifying an OIF reference clock of 644.53MHz increases serial LAN
> > PHY complexity significantly.
> > The reference clock should be left unspecified of specified at
> > 156.25MHz (or half: 78.125MHz).
> >
> > Stuart:
> > If you consider this a "friendly amendment", please update your
> > proposal and I'll be happy to endorse
> > it for July.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Henning
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Henning Lysdal
> > Design Engineer
> > GiGA A/S - an Intel Company
> > Mileparken 22
> > DK-2740 Skovlunde
> > Denmark
> > Tel.: +45 70 10 10 62, Fax: +45 70 10 10 63
> > Direct: +45 44 54 61 54
> > E-mail: hl@xxxxxxx
> > Web: www.giga.dk, www.intel.com
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com