03-24-2011 07:39 PM
What are the advanatges and disadvanatages of framing interface over streaming in Aurora protocol?
03-25-2011 03:09 AM - edited 03-25-2011 03:18 AM
The framing interface allows you to adapt a slower rate interface protocol onto the Aurora link. Also you can multiplex 2 or more interfaces to run over 1 Aurora link, as I am currently doing.
BTW, this really belongs in the Intellectual Property / Connectivity forum. Maybe some kind moderator will move it.
10-30-2018 07:32 AM
The most significant difference is that using streaming mode there is no tlast and tkeep. This means that all bytes always valid, this case is very rear in real designs. So if you use streaming mode you usually (always) have to handle data-valid signal from higher level of application.
So I suggest to use framing mode.
10-31-2018 12:08 AM
In framing start and end of the packets are defined with boundaries, where as the in the streaming there is no start and end of the frame it is only burst of continuous data .
To be more specific streaming interface allows data transmission without frame delimiters thus making it simple to operate while using less resources than for the framing interface
In streaming, the Aurora 64B/66B channel is used as a pipe. The streaming Aurora IP interface expects data to be filled for the entire s_axi_tx_tdata port width (integral multiple of eight bytes). When s_axi_tx_tvalid is deasserted, gaps are created between words that are preserved except when clock compensation sequences are being transmitted.
When data arrives at the RX side of the Aurora 64B/66B channel, it must be read immediately or it is lost. If this is unacceptable, a buffer must be connected to the RX interface to hold the data until it can be used.