| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Venkat – on the second issue, I think it is perfectly reasonable to use the same scrambler for test mode 3 that we use for the data. No need for an extra scrambler just for test. I would suggest you submit a comment on that in the next
round, or the initial working group ballot round (probably best) after the dust has settled on the other scrambler. As far as the other test modes are concerned, I think you need all 4 tests: Test 1 is for output voltage & timing jitter – basic ethernet PHY specs that we still have Test 2 is for droop – we need some kind of test for the low frequency highpass coupling of the transmitter. (PSD masks don’t work well for this) whether it is specified right for our DME system, I’ll leave to people to debate. Test 3 is for the PSD mask – we should probably delete the “transmitter distortion” part of the name (we can do that as a late comment or next round, even if we go to working group ballot – it’s a simple editorial) Test 4 is for the high impedance mode – we just added that specifically for PHYs with multidrop capability. George A. Zimmerman, Ph.D. President & Principal Consultant CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in PHYsical Layer Communications 1-310-920-3860 From: Venkat Iyer [mailto:Venkat.Iyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Colleagues, Since the T1S PMA uses DME, I was wondering if we need all three of the Test modes 1,2 and 3. Also, if we add a scrambler in PCS (as discussed in the ad hoc meetings), could we use that for test mode 3 instead of the PRBS7?
Venkat Iyer To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1 |