Hi, about a year ago we resorted to using port pin MDIO in this situation for the FCCs because the fcc_enet driver and the gianfar driver live in separate worlds, so to speak.
But in the meantime, Andy Fleming was very active regarding the PHY abstraction layer. I still haven't seen patches that migrate fcc_enet to using this layer, but the gianfar driver seems to use this code now. So I'd say quick solution: use TSEC1 MDIO for TSECs and cpm port pins for FCC, clean solution: change fcc_enet to use the PHY abstraction layer. -- Stefan Nickl Kontron Modular Computers > -----Original Message----- > From: linuxppc-embedded-bounces at ozlabs.org > [mailto:linuxppc-embedded-bounces at ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of > Gerhard Jaeger > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:14 PM > To: linuxppc-embedded at ozlabs.org > Subject: Which PHY connection to use on MPC8541... > > Hi list, > > we're currently designing a custon MPC8541 based board having > three ethernet connections. > For some reasons, we'd like to use the FCC1 and 2 + TSEC1. > From what I see from the docs, it should be no problem to > connect i.e. a quad phy (for FCC1/2) and a gigabit phy (for > TSEC1) to the EC_MDIO of the TSEC as long as they have > different addresses. > I don't want to use the GPIO stuff for MDIO. > > The question is, what does this mean to the drivers? For the > gianfar driver this should be okay and from what I see, the > upcoming fs_enet driver supports also a phy connected either > to the GPIOs (bitbanging) or the TSEC MDIO. Is this right, or > am I missing something essential? > Would it be better to use the GPIO-MDIO for the FCC phy and > the TSEC-MDIO for the TSEC phy? > > TIA > Gerhard > > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-embedded mailing list > Linuxppc-embedded at ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded >
