[SI-LIST] Re: Pin vs. Die
- From: Joseph.Schachner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: ralph.wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 09:46:47 -0500
Ralph, you are talking about TX, when you say: "The devil's advocate
argument goes that the
vendor has spec'd the device at the pins. Hence, if we meet the SI at the
pin, we can
make an argument that we've met the device specs and the system ought to
work."
Todd was talking about RX; he made that clear, he wrote:
"Ultimately, it's the signal at the die that matters,
because that's the signal that gets received and processed."
For receiving a signal, Todd is clearly right, it's the signal at the die
that matters. That is what the receiver sees.
For transmitting a signal, I think it is fine to spec compliance at the
pin. And although I agree we'd rather not have to produce a strange
failing signal at the die to get a passing signal at the pin, if the spec
doesn't require compliance testing at the die, then I agree with the
argument that you've met the device specs and the system ought to work.
Assuming that the ringback at the die does not overstress something and
shorten the life of the chip I don't see anything wrong with this, because
the receiving chip does not see what happens at transmitting chip's die.
So, instead of being a devil's advocate, I think you have proposed a
difference between where receive and transmit should be spec'd.
--- Joe S.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
List forum is accessible at:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
Other related posts:
