Part Number:DS90UB954-Q1
Hi team,
I experimentally done the manual margin analysis using EVM.
I refer to the document of the link below.
http://www.ti.com/lit/an/snla301/snla301.pdf
http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/snlu243/snlu243.pdf
First, I got the results using the margin analysis of the GUI and confirmed whether the same result can be obtained by manual setting.
The results obtained by GUI margin are as follows.
Therefore, there is a doubt about the error check register and its procedure.
In the document, registers whose errors should be confirmed are described as 0x4D[5:2] and 0x4E[5].
However, as a result of manual verification, when checking 0x4D [5: 2] and 0x4E [5], these registers remain 0 if SP is small or large.
The results at that time are as follows.
When SP is close to 0 or close to 14, register 0x4D is 0x00 and 0x4E is 0x02 in many cases.
That is, both PASS and LOCK are 0, and communication is not established.
Empirically, if it is UNLOCK status, 0x4E [2]: CABLE FAULT seems to be detected.
Also, I think that this register corresponds to the following FPD-LINK III clock, should this register also be checked?
Or will it be necessary to change the SP from the condition of stable locking?
We would like to establish a valid manual verification method.
Best regards,
Tomoaki Yoshida