Re: XAUI AC coupling
Folks,
I feel consensus emerging here.
Rich writes
> a) A XAUI implementer can always get away with AC-coupling and
> AC-coupling details for XAUI are readily available;"
and
> That said, I'd be happy to go with (1) or (2).
Dawson writes
> An alternative is to mandate CAPABILITY for AC coupling. This allows DC
> coupling where compatible implementations permit, but ensures that ALL
> implemenations will interoperate via AC coupling.
I agree. Specify the differential signal. Require the receiver
to function *when* driven by ac coupled signals to provide a method
that insures interoperability. After all, we've increased baud rate, among
other reasons, to permit ac coupling as an approach to interoperability.
Do not require ac coupling since dc coupling will often work, and we've
left a way to interoperate.
The remaining technical work is to include in an (informative) XAUI link
budget (if we choose to explain how this could work) the attenuation,
skew, and jitter, etc. budgeted for ac coupling.
Proposals and justification for this budget item?
Jeff
Rich Taborek wrote:
>
> Dawson,
>
> In terms of specsmanship, I believe that we have two alternatives with
> regard to coupling for XAUI:
>
> 1) Leave coupling out altogether as an implementation detail;
> 2) Specify detail for both AC-coupling and DC-coupling.
>
> It sound like you're leaning towards (2) where I'm leaning towards (1).
> My argument is that (2) is a whole heck of a lot more work than (1) and
> may be more costly since compliance verification has some non zero cost.
> I believe that (1) works and is interoperable because:
>
> a) A XAUI implementer can always get away with AC-coupling and
> AC-coupling details for XAUI are readily available;
> b) A savvy XAUI implementer may save $$$, increase reliability (fewer
> components), increase signal fidelity (fewer vias), etc. by going with
> DC-coupling if possible given their component selection.
>
> The only other possibilities are not palatable to me:
>
> 3) Mandate AC-coupling;
> 4) Mandate DC-coupling.
>
> That said, I'd be happy to go with (1) or (2).
>
> Best Regards,
> Rich
>
> --
>
> "Kesling, Dawson W" wrote:
> >
> > Rich and all,
> >
> > I agree that it would be nice to avoid AC coupling if we can still ensure
> > interoperability.
> >
> > If we remove reference to coupling altogether, we must add a common mode
> > specification or definite logic levels; we cannot only specify peak-to-peak
> > swing as we are now doing and expect interoperability. (All chip-to-chip
> > interconnect spec's I know of specify either DC-referenced logic levels or
> > common mode and differential mode levels. Is there an exception? We have
> > avoided this by mandating AC coupling up to this time.)
> >
> > An alternative is to mandate CAPABILITY for AC coupling. This allows DC
> > coupling where compatible implementations permit, but ensures that ALL
> > implemenations will interoperate via AC coupling.
> >
> > -Dawson Kesling
> > Intel Corporation, NCD
> > 916 855-5000 ext. 1273
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 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