Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> I would imagine a 10/100 PHY is not a simple thing and may require
>> more expensive/alternative/additional steps chip manufacturing
>> process (for
>> the analog) than is needed otherwise.
>
> Possibly, so skip the 100 part.  That's pointless anyway on a small
> microcontroller and with any modern ethernet switch.  You'd be hard press=
ed
> to find a ethernet switch nowadays that doesn't adjust its speed per port=
..
> That means you can connect the small embedded system at 10 Mbit/s, which =
is
> more than it can handle sustained anyway, but not slow down the rest of t=
he
> network.  Or put another way, you're already paying for 10 to 100 convers=
ion
> capability in the switch.  You might as well use that to make the small
> embedded system simpler.  Note that there is no loss of throughput since =
the
> small system can't keep up with 10 Mbit/s in the long run anyway.
>

While I agree with all this in theory, in practice I don't want my=20
product to be the first and only thing that tests/requires the=20
customer's 10/100 switch to work flawlessly at 10mbits for the port(s)=20
it is plugged into.  Should it all be no problem, ever?  Yes.  Will it?=20
  well... given the difficulty of doing remote support/troubleshoot of=20
why "the switch works ok with everything else" but not my product I'd=20
rather pay a little more and be 100mbit like nearly everything else in=20
the common computer/IT networking world.

Cheers
J


--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.