Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [10GBASE-T] Clauses 22 and 45 (was EFM OAM...)

Title: RE: [10GBASE-T] Clauses 22 and 45 (was EFM OAM...)

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?




-----Original Message-----
From: Warland, Tim []
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:13 PM
To: ' '; ' '; ' '
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-----
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 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?