Re: XGMII electricals -> MDIO electricals
When you say keep the current electrical specification I assume you are
referring to the Clause 22 specification and I guess that the reason for this is
to allow the 10Gb/s devices, with the new Clause 33 MDC/MDIO bus, to co-exist on
the same MDC/MDIO bus as the existing 10/100/1000Mb/s parts that have the Clause
22 MDC/MDIO bus. You however then go on to say multiply the clock frequency by
10. Now I may be missing something but unfortunately I believe that increasing
the maximum clock frequency by 10 will mean that the new Clause 33 MDC/MDIO
devices will no longer be able to exist on the same MDC/MDIO bus a exiting
(Clause 22) parts. The reason for this is the existing parts may not be designed
to operate at any MDC speed any higher than that specified in Clause 22.
Exposing these devices to this higher speed clock may make them operate
incorrectly which in turn may corrupt the operation of the entire MDC/MDIO bus.
I therefore believe that if you wish to maintain backward compatibility with the
voltage, you have to also maintain backward compatibility with the timing
Now I suppose one option would be to specify a higher speed clock for the Clause
33 MDC/MDIO but require that at startup a MDC/MDIO master (STA) poll all the
devices on the bus to see if they are all Clause 33 devices. If they all are
then the bus can operate at the higher speed, if they are not then the bus would
have to operate at the Clause 22 speed. Is that what you were proposing ?
Devendra Tripathi <tripathi@xxxxxxxxxxx> on 03/11/2000 17:53:47
Sent by: Devendra Tripathi <tripathi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Edward Turner/GB/3Com@3Com, "'stds-802-3-hssg @ieee.org'"
cc: (David Law/GB/3Com)
Subject: Re: XGMII electricals -> MDIO electricals
I would retain the current MDC/MDIO electrical specification. Timing wise,
frequency could be multiplied by a factor of 10.
At 01:48 PM 11/3/00 +0000, Edward Turner wrote:
>I'd like to pick up your last point : "...what about MDC/MDIO levels?".
>For D1.1 I inserted an editors note under an "Electrical interface"
>section as a
>place holder for an interface to be approved by the Task Force. At the Tampa
>meeting I intend to propose that we just adopt the logic family that the XGMII
>uses (we might have to put a note in about termination schemes as the MDIO is
>If anyone has any specific concerns with this I encourage them to voice
>bring bring forward an alternative proposal to the meeting.
>"Jeff Porter (rgbn10)" <j.porter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> on 02/11/2000 22:18:44
>Sent by: "Jeff Porter (rgbn10)" <j.porter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>cc: "'stds-802-3-hssg @ieee.org'" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx> (Edward
>Subject: Re: XGMII electricals
>In an effort to get us all on the same page, here are links to
>the standard XGMII interface proposals, SSTL-2 and HSTL Class 1
>on the JEDEC site under "Free Standards":
>HSTL Class 1
>SSTL_2 Class 1 (per page 9,
>First, I also discourage the development of a new 1.8V interface definition
>for XGMII for many of the reasons already on the reflector.
>I regret not making a larger issue in New Orleans about the fact
>that HSTL is a 1.5V specification. I thought there was consensus on
>the idea of saving power by going to HSTL, and was (too) willing to
>go along with voting on HSTL and 1.8V at the same time based on
>claims that there was another standard out there, and assuming that
>lacking a standard, we would still go to real (1.5V) HSTL.
>The very valid point has been made that interface variations outside
>of the IEEE standard often become popular, and that may also
>become true with XGMII. So the question is where the standard
>should point, what guidance should we give implementers? Since HSTL is
>available, standardized, and lower power, this makes a better *standard*
>interface than SSTL_2 (similar attributes, but higher power).
>That is, guide implementers toward a lower power solution.
>It has been stated that 2.5V SSTL_2 interfaces are implemented on
>early XGMII interfaces. There was discussion at New Orleans that at
>least some of these interfaces also work down to 1.8V. Even if we select HSTL
>(i.e. 1.5V), as a practical matter, many 0.18um HSTL interfaces may also work
>up to 1.8V, which may be more convenient in systems at first than a 1.5V
>If XGMII lives long enough for some reason, the market might go to even lower
>"1.5V tolerant" interface (e.g. 0.9-1.6V range specified in jesd8-11.pdf,
>October 2000, but with 50 ohm drive level).
>Perhaps a bigger question is, what about MDC/MDIO levels?
>"Grow, Bob" wrote:
> > Implementing the XGMII concensus of the Task Force expressed through straw
> > polls in New Orleans is a problem. In fact, I would characterize the
> > we took in New Orleans to be an example of group think gone wild. We had a
> > comprehensive SSTL specification in the draft, but made the straw poll
> > to change on concepts, not proposed specifications.
> > There is no standard for HSTL at 1.8 volts (the preferred voltage per straw
> > poll), nor did the TF select any other parameters of the electrical
> > specifications. (Class I, 1.5 volt HSTL as specified in EIA/JESD8-6
> is the
> > closest standardized alternative that the team working on clause 46 could
> > find). Because we couldn't find a standard to reference and the Task Force
> > didn't endorse a complete set of 1.8 volt specifications, there was no way
> > an HSTL electrical specification could be inserted into the draft without
> > adding a lot of technical material that hadn't been endorsed by the
> > committee. Therefore, all you will find in Draft 1.1 on HSTL is an
> > note describing the situation.
> > Most discussion supports the idea that the XGMII electrical interface
> is for
> > near term usage (with continued use as an module to module logic interface
> > within a chip). Implemeters expect the electrical interface to be supported
> > by I/O devices in quick turn silicon libraries. Some participants in the
> > editorial session thought ASIC vendors might have a 1.8 volt HSTL derived
> > from the above referenced specification, but weren't sure of any vendors
> > supporting it (for inclusion in the standard it should be supported by many
> > vendors).
> > We have a similar problem with the clock alignment were the straw poll
> > endorsed a change without any specifications to implement the change (e.g.,
> > skew specifications).
> > As it now stands, I would vote against going to Task Force ballot. It
> > be a shame for TF ballot to be delayed because of the absence of XGMII
> > electricals. I see three alternatives that would allow us to go forward to
> > TF ballot.
> > 1. Return to the SSTL specifications of Draft 1.0
> > 2. Reference HSTL at 1.5 volts per EIA/JESD8-6 and select from the options
> > within that specification.
> > 3. Someone presents a detailed proposal including all appropriate
> > specifications (timing, thresholds, AC and DC characteristics, termination,
> > etc.)
> > As the clause editor, I will be proposing alternative 1 in Tampa unless
> > participants come through with presentations (sufficiently detailed to
> go to
> > TF ballot), and the Task Force endorses the specifications presented.
> > Bob Grow
> > Editor Clause 46
Vitesse Semoconductor Corporation
3100 De La Cruz Boulevard
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Phone: (408) 986-4380 Ext 103
Fax: (408) 986-6050