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

RE: [802.3ae] 10GBASE-X PCS; status register definition?


Comment 126 requested that such a mapping be added to Clause 48 and my
recollection is that the comment was accepted. Therefore, there should be no
need for a recirculation comment. 

For Clause 51 and for the PMA functions in Clause 48, there are no state
machines and the ability to detect synchronization is an implementation
dependent function which is why there is not a mapping. Possibly one could
add a statement that if the optional sync_err signal is implemented, the
state of the management bit should be the dependent on the state of
sync_err, though it is not clear to me that it is necessary to do so. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Turner [mailto:ed.turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: [802.3ae] 10GBASE-X PCS; status register definition?


You are correct to highlight this and are not failing to spot a reference,
the definition of receive link status has not been mapped explicitly to any
primitives (or variables).
Management is pervasive throughout the PHY and the MDIO register bits do not
necessarily have to map directly to any primitives or variables.
In earlier versions of the draft, there was an additional register with
lane-by-lane bits for synchronization and a global bit when all lanes were
synchronized. The receive link status bit was defined as a latching
reflection of this global sync bit.  This lane-by-lane register was
(correctly) removed since the synchronization function is part of the PCS
for 10GBASE-X rather than the PMA.
There would be less ambiguity if we were to map this bit directly to some
primitive or variable and reference out to Clauses 51 and 48. The question
is how we do it. As Pat said in her e-mail yesterday, this would have to be
a re-circ comment, but there's no change against which to comment. It may be
stretching the definition of an editorial comment to make this change to
Clauses 45 and 48.
I would also be interested in hearing the views of the Clause 51 and 48

(Clause 45 editor)

Gareth Edwards wrote:

> All,
> I'm looking for clarification on how the PMA/PMD management register
> 1.1.2, "Receive Link Status" should behave when the PHY instance is a
> 10GBASE-X PCS/PMA. The specification describes it thus:
> \begin{quote}
> Receive link status (1.1.2)
> When read as a one, bit 1.1.2 indicates that the PMA is locked to the
> received signal. When read as a zero, bit 1.1.2 indicates that the PMA
> is not locked to the received signal. The receive link status bit shall
> be implemented with latching low behavior as defined in the introductory
> text of 45.2.
> \end{quote}
> which I guess is aimed at the optional sync_err signal on the XSBI for
> the clause 49 PCS and clause 51 PMA. Thing is, it's not explicitly
> mapped to any similar signal (or should I say primitive) on the
> 10GBASE-X PCS/PMA boundary, nor is it stated how it should relate to the
> state of PMA lock of each and any of the 4 PMA lanes.
> Does the draft need to be refined at this point? Or am I just failing to
> spot the reference?
> Cheers
> Gareth
> --
> / /\/\ Gareth Edwards              mailto:gareth.edwards@xxxxxxxxxx
> \ \  / Design Engineer
> / /  \ System Logic & Networking   Phone:   +44 131 666 2600 x234
> \_\/\/ Xilinx Scotland             Fax:     +44 131 666 0222