| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
For 10GBaseT etc, there should to be changes to clause 45 to
support autonegotiation. However I don't think that clause
45 requirements should be applied retro-actively to clause 22.
We don't want people to have an either/or, we need to be
specific. As such, 10GBase* would use clause 45 exclusively,
and clause 45 may reference clause 22 or add the functionality.
In summary, I am suggesting two different register maps and
one form of addressing.
Tim Warland
-----Original Message-----
From: pat_thaler@agilent.com
To: bradley.booth@intel.com; stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
Sent: 3/25/03 6:56 PM
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] Clauses 22 and 45 (was EFM OAM...)
Brad,
(I changed the subject to better reflect the current topic)
<snip>
The alternative is to move all the Clause 22 functionality into
registers in a Clause 45 device (xxBASE-T PCS?) so that everything could
be managed through that register set.
Is it better to have two different register maps to access management
information for a 1000BASE-T device depending on whether it is packaged
with a 10GBASE-T device or not, or is it better to keep one register map
per PHY type and have ICs supporting old and new PHY types support two
forms of register addressing?
<snip>