The idea was to prevent an active cable
from plugging into a legacy passive receptacle, because in such a scenario the
link won’t work, and the group felt there needs to be keying to
fool-proof this in the field.
On the other hand, a legacy passive cable
can be plugged into a SAS 2.1 active receptacle, since that should work due to
proposed sense pin and power supply logic. The proposed reverse-gender keying
accomplishes that:
(Active plug with a key) PLUGS INTO
(Active Receptacle with a key-slot)
(Active plug with a key) DOES NOT PLUG
INTO (Passive Receptacle without key-slots)
(Passive plug without a key) PLUGS INTO
(Active Receptacle with a key-slot)
(Passive plug without a key) PLUGS INTO (Passive
Receptacle without key-slots)
Gourgen Oganessyan
Quellan Inc.
Phone: (630)-802-0574 (cell)
Fax: (630)-364-5724
e-mail: gourgen@quellan.com
From:
owner-t10@t10.org [mailto:owner-t10@t10.org] On
Behalf Of Alvin.Cox@seagate.com
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 10:04
AM
To: t10@t10.org
Subject: miniSAS active cable
keying
During our last SAS phy conference call, there were separate
keys indicated for active cables (see 08-257r0).
I am wondering what the implementation plan is. The keys provide no protection
from plugging in a SAS 1.1 (legacy passive) cable and the phy's should work
with the SAS 2.0 10-meter passive version, so what is the advantage of adding
this key? I guess I am missing something in the planned implementation. Could
someone elaborate?
Alvin Cox
Seagate Technology, LLC
Office 405-381-8067
Cell 405-206-4809
E-Mail alvin.cox@seagate.com