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

RE: [802.3ae] Proposed modifications to CJPAT - round 3




All -

As you may have seen on the reflector, I am proposing changes to CJPAT in
Annex
48A. There were responses from my previous postings that raised some
questions and confusion, so below, I will try to explain why I am doing
this. I plan to submit (one of) these as a comment in sponsor ballot.

CJTPAT, from Fibre Channel, was designed as a single-channel tolerance
pattern to stress the clock and data recovery process. It also turned out to
be a useful jitter test pattern for general use. These properties were
carried over to each lane of Ethernet's CJPAT.

CJPAT was "engineered" with a highly improbable bit sequence. The most
stressful feature in the pattern occcurs once per repitition. Assuming
completely random data, I estimate the probability of this type of feature
to be less than 1e-100. However, since 8B10B is deterministic, and the
sequence is legitimate, it is arguably acceptable for reasonable worst case
testing.

Hence, CJPAT was adopted, and without further thought, replicated on all
4-lanes. This provides simultaneous jitter testing of all 4 lanes, however,
they carry identical and 100% in-phased bit sequences. This is quite
unnatural, since In normal random traffic, <1% of the columns will have
edges switching in phase (across the 4 lanes).

Three questions:
1. Is the replicated pattern still within the bounds of reasonable worst
case? Again assuming random data, we're now below a probability of 1e-400,
which is clearly not justifiable.
2. Is this what we want for crosstalk? Testing of real hardware showed that
the simple replication led to improved signal properties (when compared to
single-lane only traffic). The improved signal properties were caused by
constructive or supportive effects of in-phase crosstalk.
3. Is this what we want for EMI? EMI was not tested, but the same mechanisms
would lead to higher emissions than if the lanes were not synchronous.

I believe that these effects are artificial and must be addressed:
a. The improved signal properties due to crosstalk are a concern because a
system that appears compliant with this pattern may not be able to pass
compliance with normal traffic. In fact, it would be possible to
intentionally design crosstalk in a way that helps a unit pass compliance.
Conversely, it is possible that the crosstalk would be destructive, failing
an otherwise compliant system with normal traffic.
b. If the pattern is used for EMI testing, the in-phase lanes may cause
compliance failure in a system that could pass with more normal traffic. The
present pattern is absurdly unrealistic.


The proposed patterns have the following properties:
1. They retain the exact per-lane jitter properties of CJPAT.
2. They jumble/scramble the relative phases of the 4 lanes to be much more
realistic. This is done via lane staggering and attempted disparity control,
and should greatly eliminate the effects of crosstalk and reduce EMI. In
addition, it should be impossible to optimize a design around the pattern.

The latest proposals (11/16) are included again below.

Thanks,
Tom Lindsay
Stratos
425-672-8035 x105

*************
OPTION 1:
This option keeps the present CJPAT core in lanes 3 and 1, EXCEPT that they
attempt to run with opposing disparity from each other due to an inserted
disparity flipper in the first byte in lane 1 (an inserted byte in lane 3
does not flip disparity). I say "attempt" because (relative) starting
disparities can never be assured. The 2 cores will be opposing only if
disparities coming into the start of the pattern are the same, AND there is
nothing transmitted between repetitions of the pattern that subsequently
shifts their relative disparity. Note - if starting disparities are not
controlled to match as hoped, the disparity bytes causes the 2 lanes to
revert to synchronous transmission.

Lanes 3 and 1 begin with low transition density then switch to high
transition density. For option 1, this order is reversed in lanes 2 and 0 -
lanes 2 and 0 begin with high transition density then switch to low
transition density. Therefore, lane pairs 3-1 and 2-0 will not be
synchronous, regardless of disparities. Opposing disparity is also attempted
between lanes 2 and 0 with a disparity flipper in lane 0.

Note that CJPAT's per-lane jitter properties require specific starting
disparity in each. Since starting disparities cannot be assured, CJPAT was
designed so that all lanes switch their disparities 1/2 way through the
pattern, otherwise repeating the first half. Half of each lane's pattern
will have the appropriate jitter properties; the other half will not (but
will still provide useful "randomization". This characteristic of CJPAT has
not changed with proposed Option 1.

 3  2  1  0      lane#

  4x data     # of column repeats
55 00 07 07   1  disparity control
7E B5 7E B5   40
7E EB 7E EB   1
7E F4 7E F4   1
7E EB 7E EB   1
7E F4 7E F4   1
7E EB 7E EB   1
7E F4 7E F4   1
7E EB 7E EB   1
7E F4 7E F4   1
7E 7E 7E 7E   84
F4 7E F4 7E   1
EB 7E EB 7E   1
F4 7E F4 7E   1
EB 7E EB 7E   1
F4 7E F4 7E   1
EB 7E EB 7E   1
F4 7E F4 7E   1
AB 7E AB 7E   1
B5 7E B5 7E   40
EB F4 EB F4   1
F4 EB F4 EB   1
EB F4 EB F4   1
F4 EB F4 EB   1
EB F4 EB F4   1
F4 EB F4 EB   1
EB F4 EB F4   1
F4 AB F4 AB   1
7E B5 7E B5   40 start 2nd half of pattern
7E EB 7E EB   1
7E F4 7E F4   1
7E EB 7E EB   1
7E F4 7E F4   1
7E EB 7E EB   1
7E F4 7E F4   1
7E EB 7E EB   1
7E F4 7E F4   1
7E 7E 7E 7E   84
F4 7E F4 7E   1
EB 7E EB 7E   1
F4 7E F4 7E   1
EB 7E EB 7E   1
F4 7E F4 7E   1
EB 7E EB 7E   1
F4 7E F4 7E   1
AB 7E AB 7E   1
B5 7E B5 7E   40
EB F4 EB F4   1
F4 EB F4 EB   1
EB F4 EB F4   1
F4 EB F4 EB   1
EB F4 EB F4   1
F4 EB F4 EB   1
EB F4 EB F4   1
F4 AB F4 AB   1
DD 09 AE 5B   1  CRC


OPTION 2:
Option 2 is ~1/2 the length of option 1. This is accomplished by selecting
disparity flipping bytes and resulting CRC in a manner that returns the
opposite starting disparities to the beginning of the pattern. Each time the
pattern runs, each lane alternates disparity so that like option 1, half the
time each lane achieves the desired jitter properties, and the other half of
the time it does not.

Note that this assumes that the pattern repeats with an odd number of IPG
rows as shown in 802.3ae draft 3.3 (12 bytes). If the length of the IPG is
continually an even number of rows, then the disparity will not flip, and
the pattern could get "stuck" with either the correct of incorrect jitter
properties.

Again, lanes 2 and 0 reverse the sequence of high and low transition density
with lanes 3 and 1. Also like option 1, lanes 3 and 1 attempt relative
opposing disparity, and lanes 2 and 0 attempt relative opposing disparity.

 3  2  1  0      lane#

  4x data     # of column repeats
55 55 07 07   1  disparity control
7E B5 7E B5   40
7E EB 7E EB   1
7E F4 7E F4   1
7E EB 7E EB   1
7E F4 7E F4   1
7E EB 7E EB   1
7E F4 7E F4   1
7E EB 7E EB   1
7E F4 7E F4   1
7E 7E 7E 7E   84
F4 7E F4 7E   1
EB 7E EB 7E   1
F4 7E F4 7E   1
EB 7E EB 7E   1
F4 7E F4 7E   1
EB 7E EB 7E   1
F4 7E F4 7E   1
AB 7E AB 7E   1
B5 7E B5 7E   40
EB F4 EB F4   1
F4 EB F4 EB   1
EB F4 EB F4   1
F4 EB F4 EB   1
EB F4 EB F4   1
F4 EB F4 EB   1
EB F4 EB F4   1
F4 AB F4 AB   1
CC 08 09 CA   1  CRC


In both options 1 and 2, START/PREAMBLE/SFD and IPG remain identical to what
are shown in 802.3ae D3.3. ALL data here is consistently shown in little
endian format.