RE: Management PMA/PMD registers for XAUI
Bill,
Thank you for the PMA/PMD bit tables. Your choices
all seem fair and reasonable. For the bits that are
applicable to both the PMA and PMD, would you propose
seprate bits (eg for transmit local fault, would you
like a PMD transmit LF and a PMA transmit LF bit, or
would you propose a statement of logic to describe the
single transmit LF bit as an OR of the PMA LF and the
PMD LF)
Regards
Ed
--- "William G. Lane" <blane@xxxxxxx> wrote: >
> Ed Turner,
>
> I reviewed the bit assignments in the current
> PMA/PMD control/
> status registers for applicability to each sublayer
> and submit
> the evaluation for your review.
>
>
> As you can see, there are both a number of common
> and a number of
> non-common variables. The change would require
> adding a new subclause
> to for the PMA to clause 45 (most of it can be
> duplicated from the
> existing 45.2.1) and I am willing to generate the
> necessary comments
> to cover the changes.
>
> Changes to the other clauses will generally be
> limited to clause 45
> references (which should be automatic).
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
> P.S. what is your new e-mail address?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 03:50 PM 4/11/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> >Bill,
> >
> >I'm still in support of this approach.
> >Note that my e-mail address is changing and I can
> be
> >reached on this one for the next couple of weeks.
> >Look forward to hearing from you.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Ed
> >
> >--- "William G. Lane" <blane@xxxxxxx> wrote: >
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> During the March plenary, there was a tentative
> >> agreement between
> >> clause 45 and 54 and others (I don't specifically
> >> remember who was
> >> in the room at the time) to split the PMA/PMD
> MDIO
> >> registers into
> >> a PMA set and a OMD set. I am planning a
> technical
> >> comment
> >> recommending that action and will be working with
> Ed
> >> Turner and
> >> others on the specifics.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> At 12:57 PM 4/10/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Justin,
> >> >
> >> >As currently defined, there is only a single PMA
> in
> >> the stack which is
> >> >attached to the PMD. An XGXS doesn't have a
> >> separate PMA sublayer. I think
> >> >we should leave it that way. We already fragment
> >> the physical layer into a
> >> >lot of sublayers.
> >> >
> >> >Regards,
> >> >Pat
> >> >
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Justin Gaither
> >> [mailto:jgaither@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> >Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 7:19 AM
> >> >To: 802.3ae
> >> >Subject: Management PMA/PMD registers for XAUI
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >When a 10GBase-X PCS is being used as a PHY
> XGXS,
> >> it has a XAUI PMA.
> >> >Should this PMA have all of the Management
> >> registers specified (ie. 1.0,
> >> >1.1, 1.2&1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 1.9)? Or are these
> >> registers for the
> >> >PMA/PMD that actually tied to the fiber PMD?
> >> >
> >> >Regards,
> >> >
> >> >justin
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Justin Gaither Phone:
> >> 512-306-7292 x529
> >> >RocketChips a Division of Xilinx Fax:
> >> 512-306-7293
> >> >500 N. Capital of TX Hwy.
> >> >Bldg 3 email:
> >> jgaither@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >Austin, TX 78746 WWW:
> >> www.rocketchips.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>
>____________________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at
> http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
> >or your free @yahoo.ie address at
> http://mail.yahoo.ie
> >
> >
> >
> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/msword name=PMA-PMD
control-status bit comparison.doc;
x-mac-type=42494E41; x-mac-creator=4D535744
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie