Don’t
forget that access to C45 registers will be possible through C22 via additions
made in EFM.
What
is the value of moving all C22 into C45 if the same interface can read both
register sets already?
Didn’t
we (802.3ae) decide not to do this when we created C45 registers in the first
place? What has changed?
jonathan
-----Original
Message-----
From: Warland,
Tim [mailto:warlt@emba.uottawa.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:13
PM
To:
'pat_thaler@agilent.com '; 'bradley.booth@intel.com ';
'stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org '
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] Clauses 22 and
45 (was EFM OAM...)
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>