Add ARINC818 protocol #56
Conversation
| @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ | |||
| #use-added-syntax(jitx) | |||
| defpackage jsl/examples/protocols/sata/SATA-main: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Package name is SATA instead of ARINC818
| public pcb-bundle ARINC818 (type:ARINC818Type) : | ||
| name = "ARINC818" | ||
| description = "ARINC 818 AVDB protocol" | ||
| switch(type) : | ||
| TX : make-port(`TX, diff-pair) | ||
| RX : make-port(`RX, diff-pair) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For other unidirectional standards like DisplayPort, we don't differentiate between transmit and receive.
It feels like this attempting to implement a Cardinality style implementation. Ie - this is a output, this is an input, kind of thing.
Side note - is the ARINC818 really just a diff-pair ? Do we have a copy of the spec ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The standard is just a uni-directional diff-pair modeled on FiberChannel but the physical layer implementation is pretty well unspecified. I was trying to force an ordering by the type of bundle (TX -> RX) only.
| @param p-tx The TX pin | ||
| @param p-rx The RX pin | ||
| <DOC> | ||
| public defn check-correct-pins (p-tx:JITXObject p-rx:JITXObject): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have a check-single-pin already:
jsl/src/pin-assignment/checks.stanza
Line 9 in 6c9232f
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, tried to use that first. But the error message would not make sense in the context that you did not connect the TX to RX but instead connected RX to TX. The reason to make this directional is that some implementations are optical and in that case, you need some more directionality?
No description provided.