Re: XAUI Electrical Spec
HI
This afternoon I proposed the following for jitter frequency and
tolerance mask
1.5 UI \
\
\
\
\
\
\
---------------------- 0.1 UI
Baudrate/1667
Baudrate/25,0000
Thanks,
Ali
Broadcom
"Lysdal, Henning" wrote:
>
> All,
>
> That will be fine, as long as we all remember that jitter should be defined
> in terms of its frequency. If not we might end up with unrealistic <.3UI
> bit-widths.
>
> Henning
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boaz Shahar [mailto:boazs@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 6. november 2000 09:48
> To: 'Kesling, Dawson W'; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; Eyran Lida
> Subject: XAUI Electrical Spec
>
> Dawson,
>
> I propose to use the dimensions of the eye-opening in the Receiver's inputs
> in order to express the standard requirements from the Receiver. For
> example, the term "Minimum Eye-Height" might be used instead of Vin (min).
> The advantage is that it is clear that Min Eye-Height includes the effects
> of the Total Jitter in the Receiver.
>
> Regards,
> Boaz
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kesling, Dawson W [mailto:dawson.w.kesling@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 5:46 PM
> > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: XAUI Driver Spec
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for brigning this up, Robbie. The 1.6V idea was
> > floated in Austin
> > as it was at the XAUI breakout in New Orleans and there were
> > no objections
> > in either case. I expect that it will come up again and be
> > officially moved
> > in Tampa, so now is a good time to express concerns. I encourage other
> > receiver designers to consider the implications and come
> > prepared with an
> > opinion.
> >
> > -Dawson
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robbie Shergill [mailto:Robbie.Shergill@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 6:57 AM
> > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: XAUI Driver Spec
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >