New wave forms for SPI-3 Fig 44 & 45

Alan Littlewood alanl at lsil.com
Wed Jun 2 18:46:32 PDT 1999


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* Alan Littlewood <alanl at lsil.com>
*
While we are on the subject of the receiver input waveform that Bill Ham was
sketching at the Colorado meeting, I would like confirmation that my
understanding of the sketch was correct.

The signal swinging through +100 mV and -100 mV is the differential voltage.
 (-Signal -  +Signal).  Correct?
If not please clarify.

Thanks,
Alan.





Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com wrote:

> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
> * Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
> *
> Yes I agree with you if that is the conclusion the others reach unless
> someone is prepared to work on any related impacts to the transmitter
> specifications.
>
> Gene
>
> Wally Bridgewater <wally at eng.adaptec.com> on 06/02/99 04:25:22 PM
>
> To:   Gene Milligan
> cc:   T10 at Symbios.COM
>
> Subject:  Re: New wave forms for SPI-3 Fig 44 & 45
>
> Gene
>
> I didn't understand what that meeting was for, I thought it might be for
> something else.
>
> I thought we could all just look at our receivers with the 'notch' type
> waveform
> and say on the reflector whether we had any problems with it or not.
> If it turns out that everybody else also has no problem
> with the reciever mask, after having reviewed their simulations.
> Yes, I would say then that another meeting is not needed and we
> can wait until the July working group meeting to proceed with 99-127r6.
> We will have met the 2 week rule.
>
> Your right, figure 44 & 45 don't really show the receiver mask detail, so
> in
> other words, I have no problem with the receiver mask or any other part of
> 99-127r6.pdf
>
> Regards,
>
> Wally
>
> Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com wrote:
>
> > * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
> > * Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
> > *
> > Does this imply that from your standpoint the meeting  to review the
> > results of simulations with the proposed receive mask is not needed?
> >
> > Figures 44 and 45 do not have the required detail of the proposed
> receiver
> > mask so it is not clear if agreement with figures 44 and 45 indicate that
> > simulations support the proposed receiver mask.
> >
> > Gene
> >
> > wally at eng.adaptec.com (Walter Bridgewater) on 06/01/99 08:53:29 PM
> >
> > To:   T10 at Symbios.COM
> > cc:    (bcc: Gene Milligan)
> >
> > Subject:  New wave forms for SPI-3 Fig 44 & 45
> >
> > * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
> > * wally at eng.adaptec.com (Walter Bridgewater)
> > *
> >
> > To Everybody,
> >
> > >From last weeks timing budget meeting in Colorado Springs,
> > I said I wanted to do some simulations with the new waveforms.
> >
> > We have looked at any timing issues that the notch in the
> > timing waveform might cause and haven't found any.
> >
> > So, as far as we are concerned, the new proposed waveforms
> > for figures 44 & 45 in the SPI-3 are okay with us.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Wally
> > *
> > * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
> > * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com
> >
> > *
> > * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
> > * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com
>
> *
> * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
> * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com

*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com





More information about the T10 mailing list