RE: Clause 51 (XSBI) questions : PMA_TXSRC_CLK
I agree. You're wording is fine.
If no-one else has issues with this, let's move on to the next discussion.
From: Jscquake@xxxxxxx [mailto:Jscquake@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 13. oktober 2000 20:15
To: henning.lysdal@xxxxxxxxx; erikt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Subject: Re: Clause 51 (XSBI) questions : PMA_TXSRC_CLK
Agreed on the need to use the PMA_TXCLK_SRC as a reference for
the PCS. In that light I would modify (not REMOVE) section 51.3.1 line46 to
emphasize this need. new line to read
"The PMA_TXCLK_SRC is used by the PCS to derive the PMA_TX_CLK."
This comment was previously mentioned on page 202 line 46/47 but I think
it is very worthwhile to repeat it again here.
We can take the details of the wording off line if the concept is agreed.
In a message dated 10/13/00 8:18:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> Justin, Erik,
> Much as we agree on must issues Justin, I have to disagree when you state
> that "It is not required that one uses the PMA_TXCLK_SRC".
> It is not required that the PCS use a specific edge of the PMA_TXCLK_SRC.
> However, PMA_TXCLK_SRC is the primary clock source for the PCS (remember
> that the reference clock for the PMA is not specified). Furthermore, if
> PCS does not use the PMA_TXCLK_SRC, you open the loop thereby ruling out
> PLL based timing control.
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