Re: [10GBASE-CX4] Xmt Level
Steve,
Ok, see you there
Howard
"Dreyer, Steve" wrote:
>
> Howard,
>
> I agree with your point below that receive level is also a
> concern.
>
> As of now, we are rechecking our simulations, and I hope to
> present them next week if they still indicate 800mV is marginal,
> let's wait until then, we can more productively resolve
> the issue.
>
> Steve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Howard A. Baumer [mailto:hbaumer@broadcom.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 1:42 PM
> > To: stds-802-3-10GBCX4@ieee.org
> > Subject: Re: [10GBASE-CX4] Xmt Level
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve,
> > The thing about continually moving the Tx amplitude
> > down because there
> > is at least a 20dB loss in the system therefor the change at the
> > receiver is very little adds up after a while. Taking you
> > suggestion of
> > having the minimum peak amplitude be 750mVppd and compare that to say
> > moving it up to 1Vppd and instead of a 5mV difference at the receiver
> > you now have a 25mV difference at the receiver. That could make or
> > break the reciver design.
> > 5mV difference at the receiver might not seem like a
> > big deal but if
> > you have a 3-sigma offset for the receive comparator around
> > 20-30mV then
> > 5mV is 16-25% increase in margin!
> > It is also unreasonable to expect to be able to cover
> > every single
> > design possiblitiy in every process that exists. I agree that you can
> > create a design in one of today's existing processes that will have a
> > very tough tijme reaching 800mV but 750mV is acceptable. The
> > thing is a
> > very typical design in a very typical process can meet 800mV with more
> > than 200mV of margin.
> >
> > Howard Baumer
> >
> >
> > "Dreyer, Steve" wrote:
> > >
> > > Shawn,
> > >
> > > Two processes we use have issues at 800mV. Maybe other processes
> > > can support it, but not all. I think spec should be inclusive
> > > of all processes, and moving down by 50mV to 750mV to be more
> > > inclusive seems reasonable and not too big a price to pay.
> > >
> > > As to the multiple supply issue, I agree that many chips
> > use multiple
> > > supplies because of the reasons you stated, but that is not true
> > > in all cases. And many customers want single supply, low power
> > > operation. It seems that that spec should be designed
> > > to allow this and not exclude it.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Rogers, Shawn [mailto:s-rogers@ti.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:29 AM
> > > > To: Dreyer, Steve; stds-802-3-10GBCX4@ieee.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [10GBASE-CX4] Xmt Level
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Steve, we do not see a problem with 800mVp-p differential at
> > > > 130nm using no
> > > > special tricks or transistor construction. Our 130nm
> > > > process is pretty
> > > > generic so I would suggest that the issue is not the amplitude.
> > > >
> > > > I would prefer to leave the xmt amplitudes as is.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, most, if not all, 130nm processes require multiple
> > supplies for
> > > > backward I/O compatibility, so the point of adjusting this
> > > > spec to allow a
> > > > single supply device is not valid. I'd like to have a single
> > > > supply device
> > > > too, but the fact remains that I/O voltage levels always
> > lag process
> > > > technology. This dictates a world of where IC's have
> > > > multiple supplies.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Shawn
> > > >
> > > > ____________________________________________
> > > > Shawn Rogers, PMP s-rogers@ti.com
> > > > High Speed Serial Link Marketing
> > > > Texas Instruments
> > > > 12500 TI Boulevard / M/S 8732/ Dallas, Texas 75243
> > > > Office: 214.480.2678 Cell: 214.549.4868
> > > > ______________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Dreyer, Steve [mailto:steve.dreyer@intel.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 10:15 AM
> > > > To: stds-802-3-10GBCX4@ieee.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [10GBASE-CX4] Xmt Level
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Howard,
> > > >
> > > > The process you are using is probably different than ours,
> > > > that is why we get different results. But we have seen
> > > > 800mV being difficult to impossible on on 2 different processes.
> > > > So, I would make the claim that it is a real issue that others
> > > > could experience as well.
> > > >
> > > > And lowering the amplitude by 50mV is not that big a deal for the
> > > > receiver.
> > > >
> > > > Using thick ox devices is not a very good solution because
> > > > it requires a higher supply, which means more power, and now the
> > > > IC requires dual power supplies.
> > > >
> > > > Our customers want a single 1.2V supply and low power. I think if
> > > > lowering the level by 50mV can make this achievable by everyone,
> > > > that is a big plus.
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Howard A. Baumer [mailto:hbaumer@broadcom.com]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 8:08 AM
> > > > > To: Dreyer, Steve
> > > > > Cc: stds-802-3-10GBCX4@ieee.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [10GBASE-CX4] Xmt Level
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve,
> > > > > There areexisting 130nm parts that put out > 800mVppd.
> > > > > Our simulations
> > > > > for our designs shows that this is possible. For the
> > 90nm process a
> > > > > designer can use the higher voltage fets to achieve
> > even a 1 or 1.2V
> > > > > output. Yes these fets are slower than the stnadard fets
> > > > of 90nm but
> > > > > they will be faster than the stnadard fets for 130nm.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Howard
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Dreyer, Steve" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Howard,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My comment to your comment to my comment below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Dreyer, Steve" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Howard,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Took a quick look at the proposed draft and have
> > the following
> > > > > > > > top level comments:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. The min xmt amplitude of 800mV is probably not
> > doable on a
> > > > > > > > chip with 1.2V only supply when all worst case
> > > > conditions are
> > > > > > > > considered, it probably needs to be dropped
> > another 50mV
> > > > > > > > or so. I plan to have a quick presentation showing
> > > > > > > > this next week. For reference, the min XAUI level is
> > > > > > > > a lot lower than 800mV using the far end method.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <HAB>
> > > > > > > The 800mVpp is for a differential signal so that is
> > > > > > > only a 400mV single
> > > > > > > ended swing at the driver output, this is
> > attainable with a 1.2V
> > > > > > > supply. Also the 800mVpp min is not the minimum the driver
> > > > > > > puts out, it
> > > > > > > is the minimum for the lower limit of the peak in the
> > > > > transmit output
> > > > > > > template you reference in #3 below. This will have to be
> > > > > > > clearified in
> > > > > > > the text.
> > > > > > > <HAB>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <SD>
> > > > > > Our simulations show that 800mV dif pp (or 400mV single
> > > > ended) can't
> > > > > > be done at 1.2V when worst case conditions are put in
> > > > > place. We have
> > > > > > simulated with both a 130nm and 90nm process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Propose we reduce the min level a bit based on these
> > simulation to
> > > > > > maybe 750mV (will have exact number next week).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The 750mV is still larger than current XAUI min (if far
> > > > > > end spec is used), and reducing xmt level by 50mV
> > reduces receive
> > > > > > sensitivity by 5mV, not a big impact on receive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I plan to show simulation results next week at
> > > > Vancouver. Maybe we
> > > > > > should wait until then to discuss further.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > >
> >