Hi Lennart,
Isn't it more reasonable to set the sig_pri and sig_sec to FALSE in the top state machine at idle state?
This will allow us to delete the if conditions from ENTRY_PRI and ENTRI_SEC and will also reset the signals for the single signature state machine, something that is not happening currently.
(See below)
Yair
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Bullock (bullock) [mailto:bullock@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 2:19 AM
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] Detection cleared by SISM state diagrams
From: Chris Bullock (bullock) [mailto:bullock@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 2:19 AM
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] Detection cleared by SISM state diagrams
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Hi Lennart,
Introducing a state before ENTRY_PRI and ENTRY_SEC will do the same thing. I will support either option. I will defer to you as to which option you think looks better.
Thanks,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Lennart Yseboodt [mailto:lennartyseboodt@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 2:45 AM
To: Chris Bullock (bullock) <bullock@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] Detection cleared by SISM state diagrams
Hi Chris,
I like the concept to avoid continuously executing this block of code for a part of the state diagram that should be sleeping.
We can move it to SISM_START, but editorially that moves another chunk of text to a diagram that is already very full.
What if we introduce a state before ENTRY_PRI with no actions, and that exists to ENTRY_PRI when 'sism' ?
Does the same thing I think...
Lennart
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 03:15 +0000, Chris Bullock (bullock) wrote:
> We could take all of the assignments that are currently in the
> ENTRY_PRI and ENTRY_SEC states, and move them to the SISM_START state.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> From: Heath Stewart [mailto:00000855853231d4-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 11:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] Detection cleared by SISM state diagrams
>
> Change to
> if (sism & (CC_DET_SEQ != 2)) then
>
> -Heath
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Lennart Yseboodt <lennartyseboodt@gma
> il.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As of this cycle we have included the SISM state diagrams in our
> simulation.
>
> When a single-signature is connected, ENTRY_PRI (and SEC) are executed
> continuously because "!sism" is TRUE.
>
>
> This has the effect to force sig_pri (and sig_sec) to 'invalid'
> continuously, thereby breaking the main state diagram.
> I don't know why that statement is there.
>
> Can we remove the IF statement and sig_pri <= invalid ?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Lennart
>
>
>
> --
> Heath Stewart
> Design Center Manager, Mixed Signal
>
> Office (805) 560-7658
> Mobile (805) 895-0499
> Websites analog.com, linear.com
>
> Linear Technology is now part of Analog Devices. Learn more.
>