Design and Implementation of an MIPI A-PHY Retransmission Layer for Automotive Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for your submitted paper! What I can emphasize is that, in my opinion, the paper had to be written more simply in terms of strong abbreviations and that it is difficult to follow everything with so many cross-references.

The recommendations are as follows:

Comment 1:

A small letter at the beginning of a sentence.

Line 34- “gigabit multimedia serial link (GMSL)[14], “

Comment 2:

In several places in the text I am not sure what value is written.

Line 36-   4 6Gbps   - Is this 4 and 6 or is it 46?

Line 39 2 16 Gbps. - Is this 2 and 16 or is it 216?

Comment 3:

Figure 1. A-PHY Architecture – The figure is shown at the beginning of chapter 2 and then explained in chapter 2.1. which is not as big a problem as it is in some other places where the chapter has been changed.

Comment 4:

What value is this? “Line 100- time is 6 12 us”

Comment 5:

Figure 8a and 8c-  The figures are the same, so I'm interested in how to determine the difference between them. Can you explain that?

Comment 6:

Table 2 is mentioned in chapter number 4 and is shown in chapter 5.

I think you should explain it in chapter 4.

Comment 7:

Line 202- What are the long distance channels?

Comment 8:

Many abbreviations are used in the text and some are not even explained like ACK. Can you proofread the text and write the full name the first time the abbreviations are mentioned?

 Comment 9:

The main recommendation is to simplify the text if possible so that all parts and segments can be understood.

Author Response

Please attach the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors proposed the structure of the RTS layer, a newly created physical layer, and designed and verified A-PHY, including the RTS Layer, a new vehicle SerDes standard. They addressed detailed structure of the RTS layer to satisfy the RTS required by the standard. They showed that designed RTS layer was RTS through CRC, MC, and Delay, which are PHY fields of A-Packet, and it was confirmed through simulation that the two RTS operations operated according to the standard. The FPGA environment was built to verify the designed RTS layer, the operation was checked, and the ASIC implementation result was confirmed. In my opinion, this paper is well written. It is a kind of perfect works. The only comment is about the references list. It should be updated to include related published works in 2023.

Author Response

Please attach the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer’s comments on electronics-2630428

The structure of retransmission (RTS) layer presented in the A-PHY interface standard was designed in this work. However, in my opinion, this manuscript is not appropriate to be published in current form due to the comments including but not limited to as below,

1. It is a simulation counted work, while the real experiments are lacking, which are quite important for the validation, so the load in this work is insufficient.

2. There are a lot of unidentified space symbols. For example, “4 6Gbps” in line 36, “2 16Gbps” in line 40, and “6 12us” in line 100.

3. What are the functions of the “Loopback Module” in Figure 6?

4. How did the authors distinguish between (a) and (c) in Figure 8?

5. Line 181, as for the statement “DSPs are not used, and the maximum operating frequency of the designed system is 200MHz.”, what is the difference between the maximum operating frequency of the designed system when using DSP or not using it?

6. What did each partition represent in Figure 9?

Moderate editing of English language required. 

Author Response

Please attach the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors claim that they proposed and designed the detailed structure of the RTS layer presented in the A-PHY interface standard. However, their contribution or modification in the RTS layer is not clear.

The following comments are for the authors to improve the paper and clarify some concepts.

1.    The authors should add a figure before Fig.3 showing the old block diagram of RTS.

2.    The author should make their contribution clear in the introduction.

3.    Figure 7 is “Simulation of RTS”. Is it simulation using a package or it is the result of experimental work? The title should be clear if it is Experimental work.

4.    In all the text, the range of values should be written as 4-6 (line 36) and over all the pages.

Already mentioned in the comments above.

Author Response

Please attach the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

This manuscript “A Design and Implementation of MIPI A-PHY RTS Layer for Automotive Applications” has developed the detailed structure of the RTS layer presented in the A-PHY interface standard. The result is very meaningful. However, the manuscript has some defect. Thus, I suggest that the paper be major revision. The following hints may help the authors：

Q1: In paper, please avoid the lump literature, such as [6-11] [17-18] and so on, summarize the main contribution of each references paper in separate sentences. The reference style should be checked again according to the journal standard.

Q2: There are a lot of abbreviations in the article, and the full names are not indicated. It is necessary for the author to add a nomenclature at the beginning or end of the article. Q3: In the Abstract, the Reference should be avoided as much as possible.

Q4: The writing and grammar should be extensively improved. The current version of the manuscript is hard to read because it is poorly written.

Q6: In the paper, the conclusion is not well organized. The results should be further elaborated to show how they could be used for the real applications.

Q7: Many similar papers have been published. The innovation of the article should be improved.

This manuscript “A Design and Implementation of MIPI A-PHY RTS Layer for Automotive Applications” has developed the detailed structure of the RTS layer presented in the A-PHY interface standard. The result is very meaningful. However, the manuscript has some defect. Thus, I suggest that the paper be major revision. The following hints may help the authors：

Q1: In paper, please avoid the lump literature, such as [6-11] [17-18] and so on, summarize the main contribution of each references paper in separate sentences. The reference style should be checked again according to the journal standard.

Q2: There are a lot of abbreviations in the article, and the full names are not indicated. It is necessary for the author to add a nomenclature at the beginning or end of the article. Q3: In the Abstract, the Reference should be avoided as much as possible.

Q4: The writing and grammar should be extensively improved. The current version of the manuscript is hard to read because it is poorly written.

Q6: In the paper, the conclusion is not well organized. The results should be further elaborated to show how they could be used for the real applications.

Q7: Many similar papers have been published. The innovation of the article should be improved.

Author Response

Please attach the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for submitting the corrected version of the paper. You corrected the work in accordance with my comments and recommendations. I am satisfied with the quality of the answer. First of all, it should be noted that you have simplified the explanations of the work, and I believe that it can be simplified even more. The entire work should be proofread to correct technical errors such as a double closed parenthesis (Line 36) or different labeling of two references (Line 23 - [1],[2] and Line 58- [21,22]).

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks for your reply. 

However, in my opinion, I still feel that the data and work load are not enough in this manuscript. 

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors have carried out a thorough and careful revision and the revised manuscript improved a lot in terms of technical quality and language. Therefore, I would recommend it for publication in the Journal.

The authors have carried out a thorough and careful revision and the revised manuscript improved a lot in terms of technical quality and language. Therefore, I would recommend it for publication in the Journal.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

None. 

Moderate editing of English language required.