By: David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com), September 23, 2007 9:46 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
David W. Hess (dwhess@banishedsouls.org) on 9/22/07 wrote:
---------------------------
>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.
CSI uses 1 clock lane per 5 data lanes, and I was under the impression that HT used 1 clock lane per 8 data lanes...
>In the case of HT, the clock
>is required even when 8B/10B encoding is used to support AC >coupling.
AC coupling is used for a box to box interconnect, right?
DK
---------------------------
>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.
CSI uses 1 clock lane per 5 data lanes, and I was under the impression that HT used 1 clock lane per 8 data lanes...
>In the case of HT, the clock
>is required even when 8B/10B encoding is used to support AC >coupling.
AC coupling is used for a box to box interconnect, right?
DK
