Re: XAUI AC coupling
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).
"Kesling, Dawson W" wrote:
> Rich and all,
> I agree that it would be nice to avoid AC coupling if we can still ensure
> 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