| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Lennart – OK, so I went and looked at the use of alt_pwrd_pri and alt_pwrd_sec. If I have it correctly, they are FALSE when no power is applied and go true in POWER_UP states. As such, there names and senses are probably backwards – (they could be “alt_nopwr_pri/sec”) – but let’s not touch that, for fear of making too many changes. To remind, the definition currently reads: alt_pwrd_pri A variable that controls the circuitry that the PSE uses to power the PD over the Alternative that has been assigned as Primary. Values: FALSE: The PSE is not to apply power to the Primary Alternative. TRUE: The PSE has detected, classified, and will power a PD on the Primary Alternative, is powering the Primary Alternative. My review of the functioning of alt_pwrd_XYZ is that it is FALSE when there is no power applied to the PI by the PSE, and becomes TRUE in the POWER_UP state, and remains true in POWER_ON (and all times after that when power is actually
applied). We had something similar in 802.3bu, and ended up with a similar variable, pi_powered: pi_powered TRUE: the circuitry that applies full operating voltage to the PI is enabled. FALSE: the circuitry that applies full operating voltage to the PI is disabled. Based on the description of alt_pwrd_pri/sec, I think it is the same thing, since going into POWER_UP (and then POWER_ON) refers to the application of full operating voltage to the PI. As such, here is what I suggest (using the pri as an example): alt_pwrd_pri A variable that controls the circuitry that the PSE uses to power the PD over the Alternative that has been assigned as Primary. Values: FALSE: The circuitry that applies full operating voltage to the Primary alternative of the PI is disabled. TRUE: The circuitry that applies full operating voltage to the Primary alternative of the PI is enabled. -george From: George Zimmerman [mailto:george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Len art - Your intent of the change sounds good to me. I have to think a bit about whether there is a better description . The wording ‘is to apply Power’ still falls into the trap of implying a future action George A. Zimmerman, Ph.D. CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in PHYsical Layer Communications 310-920-3860
Hi all, <unknown-3NG77Y> We discussed this at the last meeting and I feel we did not end up with a good solution. The definition of variables should be restricted to what the variable does or represents. These variables' "TRUE" description includes behaviour that (should have) happened in the past, as well as making a forward looking statement. If we look at how these variables are actually used, the definition really is very simple: FALSE = The PSE is not to apply power to the XYZ Alternative. TRUE = The PSE is to apply power to the XYZ Alternative. Objections ? Lennart |