Stefan,
Ack. We usually do all this setup in U-Boot. But as I understand Eddie, he is
using a custom bootloader.
Correct, I'll put this code in the platform initialization. Thanks for the
suggestions everyone.
Eddie, btw: Why are you not using U-Boot?
At Technologic Systems, one of our d
On Wednesday 08 April 2009, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> I would like to eventually submit our changes for upstream support.
> >> Based on this would you recommend ensuring tx enable is configured
> >> properly in the initialization of the ibm_newemac driver or the platform
> >> initialization?
> >
> >
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 April 2009, Eddie Dawydiuk wrote:
>> > I found the ibm_newemac driver(2.6.29) makes the assumption that the
>> > bootloader has already configured the tx enable pin as it is a
>> > multiplexed pin. Unfortuantley I am not using U
On Wednesday 08 April 2009, Eddie Dawydiuk wrote:
> > I found the ibm_newemac driver(2.6.29) makes the assumption that the
> > bootloader has already configured the tx enable pin as it is a
> > multiplexed pin. Unfortuantley I am not using U-Boot and our minimal
> > bootloader does not do this. Af
Hello,
I found the ibm_newemac driver(2.6.29) makes the assumption that the
bootloader has already configured the tx enable pin as it is a
multiplexed pin. Unfortuantley I am not using U-Boot and our minimal
bootloader does not do this. After finding tx enable was never
asserting for Eth0 a
Hello,
Thanks for the suggestions :)
I found the ibm_newemac driver(2.6.29) makes the assumption that the bootloader
has already configured the tx enable pin as it is a multiplexed pin.
Unfortuantley I am not using U-Boot and our minimal bootloader does not do this.
After finding tx enable w
Feng,
Are you able to ping in u-boot? Sounded like you were only pinging in
linux.
We are not using u-boot, we've written a custom bootloader. I see there are a
few debugging flags in the emac driver I can enable, I'll do that next to look
into the problem further. Thanks for the response.
On Tuesday 07 April 2009, Grant Likely wrote:
> Phy address 0 is the broadcast address. All phys will usually respond
> to address 0 accesses.
Not all. Some (e.g. LXT971) can be used at this address. But you're correct,
it's definitely a bad idea to use 0 as an PHY address.
Not sure how the Mi
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Eddie Dawydiuk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm working on a board based on the Yosemite AMCC 440EP eval board. I'm
> having some difficulty getting both network interfaces working. The first
> problem I found is the ibm_newemac driver was detecting the two phys at
> address
Hi Eddie:
Are you able to ping in u-boot? Sounded like you were only pinging in linux.
I would try the mii command in uboot. It seems like it detected the
phys. Try enable the
loopbacks at the different stages to see if the traffic is returning.
This excerise is
much easier in uboot than linux
Hello,
I'm working on a board based on the Yosemite AMCC 440EP eval board. I'm having
some difficulty getting both network interfaces working. The first problem I
found is the ibm_newemac driver was detecting the two phys at address 0 and 1
where we have them wired for addresses 1 and 3. As a
11 matches
Mail list logo
