This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

DS90UB913A-Q1: Splitting FPD-Link III signal

Part Number: DS90UB913A-Q1

Hello,

I am trying to understand whether it is possible to split an FPD-Link III signal, so it can be received by two independent deserializers. My query is pretty much the same as this previous thread, with the only difference being that I am not able to access the existing deserializer to make use of the replication mode: https://e2e.ti.com/support/interface/f/138/t/545587

I have an automotive camera (I think it is an ON Semiconductor/Aptina AR0132AT) coupled to DS90UB913 serializer, powered over coax from a standard automotive ECU. The ECU contains either a DS90UB954 or DS90UB960 deserializer. I would like to be able to access the video stream from the camera using an in-line device, but without preventing the manufacturers ECU from interfacing with the camera in the way it usually does. 

Is it possible to:

  1. Tap into the coax link with a second deserializer to read the data
  2. Or would it be necessary to deserialize the data and the reserialize it to send it back to the manufacturer ECU?

Is the second approach likely to introduce latency which would affect the operation of the system?

Thanks in advance!

Best regards,

Jordan

 

  • No, option 1 is not possible. 

    Option 2 will introduce some delay and will introduce complications in terms of I2C communication between the ECU and the camera. Do you have access to program the ECU?

    Best Regards,

    Charley Cai

  • Thank you Charley.

    Unfortunately I have no access to the ECU, I am trying to find a solution which can be easily retrofitted by placing it in-line between the serializer and deserializer.

    Do you know of any alternative approach, or would option 2 be the only route to explore?

    Many thanks for your help so far!

  • I'm not aware of any alternative solution than option 2.

    Best Regards,

    Charley Cai