On 16/03/2014 8:24 am, Peter Dufault wrote:
On Mar 15, 2014, at 15:55 , Joel Sherrill mailto:joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com>> wrote:
I don't know your RAM or requirements situation but the new TCP/IP
stack may also be an option.
But if staying with the old stack, updating the driver may be an
easi
On 2014-03-17 12:04, Peter Dufault wrote:
[dufault@litho9099 rtems-libbsd]$ ls freebsd/sys/dev/smc
if_smc.c if_smcreg.h if_smcvar.h
[dufault@litho9099 rtems-libbsd]$
This is the new stack, correct? That driver is what I was thinking of looking
at porting to the old stack. I will spend some
On Mar 17, 2014, at 03:57 , Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> I cannot say much to the SMC9. The new network stack however will not
> improve the performance in its current state.
>
> On a MPC5674F running at 264MHz we had approx. 5MByte/second upstream and
> downstream with the SMSC LAN9218i usi
On 2014-03-16 20:08, Peter Dufault wrote:
On Mar 15, 2014, at 18:01 , Joel Sherrill mailto:joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com>> wrote:
There are three pieces and I may have confused you.
+ current stack in tree
+ some add on drivers with porting kit
+ new dual mode stack
I do not think there is an sm
On Mar 15, 2014, at 18:01 , Joel Sherrill wrote:
> There are three pieces and I may have confused you.
>
> + current stack in tree
> + some add on drivers with porting kit
> + new dual mode stack
>
> I do not think there is an smc driver in the add on kit. I just thought if
> you decided to
On Mar 15, 2014 4:23 PM, Peter Dufault wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 15, 2014, at 15:55 , Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>> I don't know your RAM or requirements situation but the new TCP/IP stack may
>> also be an option.
>>
>> But if staying with the old stack, updating the driver may be an easier
>> option.
On Mar 15, 2014, at 15:55 , Joel Sherrill wrote:
> I don't know your RAM or requirements situation but the new TCP/IP stack may
> also be an option.
>
> But if staying with the old stack, updating the driver may be an easier
> option. There is a collection of newer drivers for the current sta
On Mar 15, 2014 1:39 PM, Peter Dufault wrote:
>
> I'm including you directly, Daniel, since you've done some recent patches for
> the SMC9 driver on the Sparc. That's the only place I think it's used
> other than on the Phytec MPC5554. If anyone else is using it then I'd love
> to know.
I'm including you directly, Daniel, since you've done some recent patches for
the SMC9 driver on the Sparc. That's the only place I think it's used
other than on the Phytec MPC5554. If anyone else is using it then I'd love to
know.
The SMC9 performance on the Phytec Phycore board is h
