By: David W. Hess (dwhess.delete@this.banishedsouls.org), September 22, 2007 9:50 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (no@spam.com) on 9/22/07 wrote:
---------------------------
>>I suspect there is not a good reason to use 8B/10B encoding and sacrifice 20% of
>>your throughput where a clock can be made available unless
>
>But if a clock signal were made available, then you'd be wasting 100% of the potential
>throughput from that particular signal link, which could have been transferring data instead.
I had not considered that but both CSI and HT use one clock lane per group of 4 parallel data lanes yielding the same 80% efficiency. In the case of HT, the clock is required even when 8B/10B encoding is used to support AC coupling.
---------------------------
>>I suspect there is not a good reason to use 8B/10B encoding and sacrifice 20% of
>>your throughput where a clock can be made available unless
>
>But if a clock signal were made available, then you'd be wasting 100% of the potential
>throughput from that particular signal link, which could have been transferring data instead.
I had not considered that but both CSI and HT use one clock lane per group of 4 parallel data lanes yielding the same 80% efficiency. In the case of HT, the clock is required even when 8B/10B encoding is used to support AC coupling.
