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

Re: [RE] New white paper, with updates from Wednesday's meeting



David,

On p. 149 of your latest document, you indicate that baseRate is defined as:

baseRate = (1<<(uint64_t)56)*(double)(clockFrequency)

and then give an example that, if clockFrequency = (1GHz)/16, the
baseRate = 1,152, 921,504.

Can you explain how you get this?  If I put 1<<(uint64_t)56 = 2^56, then

baseRate = (2^56)(10^9)/16 = (approx) 4.5036e24

I realize you don't indicate whether clockFrequency is in GHz or in Hz.  The 
above has it in Hz; if
we put it in GHz, we  get

(2^56)/16 = 2^52 = (approx) 4.4.5036e15

I tired working backwards, by factoring 1,152,921,504 into primes; the 
result is

1,152,921,504 = (2^5)(3)(7)(17)(43)(2347)

I don't see how this relates to (2^56) multiplied by a power of 10 and then 
divided by 16.

In addition, I can't resolve this by assuming 1,152,921,504 might have a 
typo in it, as the results above differ by at least
6 orders of magnitude.  Anyway, can you explain this in more detail.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Geoff
-----------------------------------------
Geoffrey M. Garner
Samsung (Consultant)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David V James" <dvj@ALUM.MIT.EDU>
To: <STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 7:45 PM
Subject: [RE] New white paper, with updates from Wednesday's meeting


> All,
>
> I have updated the RE white paper, written by
> myself with numerous contributors, to include updates
> from comments received on last Wednesday's meeting.
>
> Great appreciation should be shown to Geoff Garner,
> whose extensive review of C-code had forced me to
> run compiler checks and fix numerous bugs.
>
> Thanks also to Alexei, who reviewed and suggested
> changes to latency-constraints subclause.
>
> Since its hard to see one's own glaring mistakes,
> such reviewes are critical and greatly appreciated!
>
> Copies can be found at:
>  http://dvjames.com/esync/dvjReNext2005Jun24.pdf
>  http://dvjames.com/esync/dvjReBars2005Jun24.pdf
>
> I assume Michael will (hint, hint) get these posted
> on our IEEE site. Thanks, then, to Michael.
>
> Cheers,
> DVJ
>
>
>