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

RE: MDIO register addresses

The only comment on this would be not to mix status & control in single
register. The
semantics of these two types of registers are well understood and should be
kept apart. Putting multiple
control type registers or multiple status type registers for a given device
should be fine. Compressing registers of mutliple device types in one is
aganin painful because
in real implementation only one or two device types will be implemented and
we compress registers of multiple device types in one, it will leave big
holes in implemented
register bits.


Devendra Tripathi
VidyaWeb, Inc
90 Great Oaks Blvd #206
San Jose, Ca 95119
Tel: (408)226-6800,
Fax: (408)226-6862

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Stephen.Finch@xxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 9:34 AM
> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: MDIO register addresses
> Curious as to how/why the registers numbers were selected.  At first I
> thought they assigned unique register addresses to each register type
> (e.g., "Status", "Control") regardless of the device type but a closer
> look shows that this isn't true.  For example register address 24
> contains 10GBASE-4 Status for a PMA/PMD device, 10GBASE-X PCS Status for
> a PCS device, and Lane Status for XGXS devices.
> Assuming that I haven't missed something, I suggest that we either
> compress the register addresses for each device (eliminate reserved
> registers from the middle) or make the register assignments unique for
> all devices.
> Comments?
> Steve Finch