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

RE: XAUI receiver characteristics


It seems that there is a lot of confusion as to what the minimum
pulse width should be at the receive end.  If one just looks at the
eye-opening of 0.35UI, it would imply a minimum pulse width of 112ps which
I believe is unrealistic since eye-diagram is a superposition of multiple
bits (edges).  

I think we need to define the minimum pulse width at the receiver in the
standards document along with the eye-diagram.  The question is what value
one use for the minimum pulse-width.

If one uses minimum-pulse of 112ps and assumes that the clock is in the
of the data-eye, it would imply a setup/hold time of 56ps for the Flip-flop
that latches the data.  This is surely extremely difficult to do in standard

Any thoughts/comments on this.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kesling, Dawson W [mailto:dawson.w.kesling@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 8:52 PM
Subject: RE: XAUI receiver characteristics


>I think it might be also beneficial to define what pk-pk jitter is at
>the receiver from one bit to the next, i.e. at high frequencies -
>3.125G/2. Does it mean that:
>1. A single received bit can shrink to 0.35UI - 112 ps? (not surely
>practical given the transmitter spec?) 

You are right. This is not possible given the transmitter spec.

>2. Over a pair of received bits, one bit can shrink to 67.5% of nominal
>bit (216 ps) and the next bit can stretch to 132.5% of a nominal bit 
>(424ps), giving an overall jitter between the pair of 0.65 UI? Another
>way of describing this is a receiver must successfully land a single
>occurrence of a 1 as long as 132.5% or as short as 67.5%. This leads to
>a definition of pk-pk jitter as 
>	(maxBitTime - minBitTime)/nominalBitTime e.g. 132.5-67.5/100 = 65%. 

Also not possible given the transmitter spec.

>An eye diagram builds up an aggregate picture over many thousands of
>bits. If in that sample size, one bit stretched and another bit shrunk
>by half pk-pk jitter, it would result in an eye opening of 0.35 UI. It
>would not necessarily mean however that any bit had shrunk by 0.65 UI. 

Right. This is the intent of the receive eye.

>A jitter mask describing amplitude of jitter versus frequency from 100hz
>to 3.125G/2 would be helpful. 

There is some desire to avoid a full jitter immunity plot verses frequency
if possible due to the compliance testing burden. Even a SONET-like immunity
plot has a flat tolerance out to the baud rate and doesn't eliminate the
112ps pulse scenario. 

If the intent is to avoid a misinterpretation of receive eye compliance
requirements, then I would prefer to see a statement such as, "The source
for receiver compliance testing must comply with the transmit
specifications. A linear filter can be used between this source and the
receiver for compliance testing purposes." I haven't thought enough about
how to word and incorporate this into the standard, but the purpose is to
prevent someone from generating a 112ps pulse and expecting the receiver to
comply. In effect, it limits random jitter to 0.35UI (plus a little for
noise) and budgets the rest to DJ. This is more like the real world
situation. Any thoughts?

>- Anne