Thanks Greg and Leon The PHYs was indeed the problem. One down, one one to go:-)
On Friday 13 April 2007 02:32:37 Greg Ungerer wrote: > > I have seen this type of behavior (working on 2.4 and not on 2.6) if > the PHY detection code is not quite right in the AccessLibrary code. > Check that first, probably ixp400_xscale_sw/src/ethMii/IxEthMii.c or > in the actual eth driver ixp400_eth.c. I tested using the same config as the ADI_COYOTE in ixp400_eth.c, while it has 5 PHYs it found mine at address 4 and 5. While my original config used 0 and 1. Changing that to 4 and 5 works. On Friday 13 April 2007 12:23:18 Leon Woestenberg wrote: >The 2.4 kernel is robust against this, the PHY detection in 2.6 is not. Since it works using 0 and 1 in 2.4, but actually detects as 4 and 5 when scanned under 2.6. I'd say that's true. On Friday 13 April 2007 02:32:37 Greg Ungerer wrote: > > Though this wouldn't explain the eepro100 not working. > Indeed, this one still remains. SInce it (miss)behaves the same, could it be a PHY detection problem on this one too? Regards Knut > >> > >> My board has one i82557/i82558 10/100 Ethernet port(using eepro100 > >> driver) as eth0. And one of the 425s npe port is connected to a regular > >> ethernet port, while the other is connected to a 4 port switch. _______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by [email protected] To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
