Re: Clause 51 (XSBI) questions
Hello Erik,
This was the path taken by OIF. My preference was/is to do something
similar to XAUI where there are specs for output and input that are
applicable either end of the connection, PMA or PCS. However, the XSBI is
coming from slightly
different angles
a) inclusion of clock signals
b) legacy from leveraging from OIF ... where they have done
inversions on the clocks
c) efforts to accomodate technology PCS (CMOS),
PMA (higher speed processes)
So ... given the more "complicating" issues, I think it may be in the best
interest to spec both ends. These would be additions to the specs currently
in clause 51. I will certainly highlight this at the editor's mtg in
Austin,TX.
Regards,
Justin Chang
Quake Technologies, Inc.
50 Airport Parkway, San Jose, CA. 95110
Tel: 408-437-7723 email: justin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fax: 408-437-4923 internet: www.quaketech.com
In a message dated 10/13/00 8:55:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
erikt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Hi Justin,
>
> Would it not make more sense to specify the timing requirement,
> both at the PMA and the PCS? I can envisage a situation where
> a vendor selling PCS+PMA modules buys PCS devices from one
> vendor and PMA devices from another vendor. The PCS vendor
> and the PMA vendor would have to have prior knowledge of the
> board design, which may or may not be possible. Specifying
> timing requirement for both devices allows easier inter-working
> in my opinion.
>
> Regards,
> Erik Trounce
>