Questions/comments regarding 11-036r6 proposal (Transmitter training)

Penokie, George George.Penokie at
Wed Jun 15 12:46:26 PDT 2011

Formatted message: <a href="">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="">image001.png</a>

Thanks for your comments. See my responses below.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41st St. NW
Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
george.penokie at
From: owner-t10 at [mailto:owner-t10 at] On Behalf Of Karthikeyan,
Kishore K
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 12:32 PM
To: t10 at
Subject: Questions/comments regarding 11-036r6 proposal (Transmitter
Hi all
I had some comments on the 11-036r6 proposal that I was hoping to get covered
in the call today but the email I sent last night bounced from t10 reflector
and unfortunately, I missed today's conference call too.
Given below are the review comments/questions from my review of pages 1- 88
of 11-036r6.
Pg 33, last line
"If the phy's receiver does not detect a pattern marker after a Train_Tx
pattern then the pattern marker shall be invalid.
What is the above statement trying to say? As there is no time bound for this
pattern detection, what scenario is this statement trying to cover?
GP - The Train-Tx pattern is very specific and clearly defined in table 9. If
there is no patter marker immediately following the 58 dwords of zeros that
is considered an invalid pattern marker.
Pg 35
The control/status TTIU is used by a phy to:
a) ....
b) ......
Statement b) does not match the contents of the fields. Training status word
contents are not used to receive status of the attached phy's transmitter. It
is used to convey the current status of the transmitter training to the
attached phy.
GP - It depends on what side of the but you are on. Your statement is correct
but so is the one in the proposal. For now I am not making any change here.
Pg 44
[cid:image001.png at 01CC2B69.D2E95810]
Shouldn't this read as follows --> then a new Train_Tx-SNW shall be performed
(if possible) or Train_Rx-SNW shall be performed (if Train_Tx-SNW not
possible) based on the next highest, untried, commonly supported settings.
GP - Yes - Fixed
Pg 37
In the paragraph about phy reset problem
A phy reset problem occurs:
a) ----
b) ----
c) ----
Shouldn't we also add one more condition to this to cover Train_Tx-SNW?
d) after a Train_Tx-SNW, if the Train_Tx-SNW is invalid and there are no
additional, untried, commonly supported settings.
See pg 81 -->
GP - Yes - Fixed
Pg 54
Just below the figure
Spelling mistake -->  Transmitter
GP - Fixed
Page 53, last line
Grammatical error --> after "of"
GP - Fixed
pg 55
Typo in figure --> TTIU instead of ITTU
GP - Fixed
Pg 81
Instead of "the phy shall", it should be "this state shall" in 2)
GP - The 'the phy shall' wording is the way these things are stated in the
SPxx state machines.  Just look in SLP-2 and you see that statement all over
the place in the SP state machine sections.
Pg 88
typo (use 1,2 and 3 instead of 1,1,1 in these paragraphs for the "transmitter
Adjustment complete" and the "current coefficient")
GP - Fixed
Just for my understanding, what was the reason for disabling OOB detection
during Train-Tx window? We don't disable it for Train-Rx then why disable it
for Train-Tx?
GP - I am not an expert on this but what I understand is that Manchester
encoded period is close to OOB timing and that could cause problems.

More information about the T10 mailing list