forget that access to C45 registers will be possible through C22 via additions
made in EFM.
the value of moving all C22 into C45 if the same interface can read both
register sets already?
(802.3ae) decide not to do this when we created C45 registers in the first
place? What has changed?
From: Warland, Tim
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003
To: 'email@example.com ';
'firstname.lastname@example.org '; 'email@example.com '
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.
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Sent: 3/25/03 6:56 PM
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] Clauses 22 and 45 (was EFM OAM...)
(I changed the subject to better reflect the current topic)
The alternative is to move all the Clause 22 functionality into
registers in a Clause 45 device (xxBASE-T PCS?) so that everything
be managed through that register set.
Is it better to have two different register maps to access
information for a 1000BASE-T device depending on whether it is
with a 10GBASE-T device or not, or is it better to keep one
per PHY type and have ICs supporting old and new PHY types support
forms of register addressing?