Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: XAUI Driver Spec




Hello Ali,
I have a question in regards to your presentation for Tampa:
 
You assert that the 900mv signal is attenuated to 200mv due to a loss of
13db. This loss includes Jitter? That is, the height of the eye pattern in
the receiver's input is 200mv or less then that due to jitter?

Thx.,
Boaz


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ali Ghiasi [mailto:aghiasi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 6:17 PM
> To: Robbie Shergill
> Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: XAUI Driver Spec
> 
> 
> 
> HI
> 
> The receiver max amplitude need to be higher than transmitter to allow
> some
> margin and protection.  Very likely in Tampa the max transmit 
> amplitude
> will
> be raised, where 1.6 V max will become more logical.  The 1.6 volts is
> p-p
> diff. so each wire only drives 800 mV.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ali
> 
> Broadcom
> 
> Robbie Shergill wrote:
> > 
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > Last week in Austin the XAUI group decided to change Max 
> Diff. Amplitude to
> > 1.6 volts. As I understood it, the rationale for increasing 
> the max amplitude
> > was to achieve commonality with the Infiniband spec. 
> Although I agree with
> > the spirit of this rationale, I checked the Infiniband spec 
> and found
> > that they are trying to drive a cable as well as a 
> backplane with one
> > electrical specification; thus the reason for the 1.6v spec. In this
> > case, I'm not sure if it is worth matching the Infiniband 
> spec in this
> > one area. My feeling is that a driver circuit can be made to drive
> > up to either 1.0 volt or 1.6 volt relatively easily; but it would be
> > much more troublesome for a (XAUI) receiver to tolerate 1.6 volts
> > *needlessley*.
> > 
> > So, if the above reasoning is agreed to by others, I would 
> propose that we
> > stay with 1.0 volt max. diff. amplitude that is in the 
> current draft 1.0
> > (page 119, line 22).
> > 
> > -Robbie Shergill
> >  National Semiconductor
>