From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from natnoddy.rzone.de (natnoddy.rzone.de [81.169.145.166]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B62D67B5B for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:21:43 +1100 (EST) From: Stefan Roese To: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: Yosemite/440EP 'issues' as a PCI target Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:21:32 +0100 References: <20060210173133.964B53525CC@atlas.denx.de> <43ED7E1E.2030700@ovro.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <43ED7E1E.2030700@ovro.caltech.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200602110921.33245.sr@denx.de> List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi David, On Saturday 11 February 2006 07:03, David Hawkins wrote: > Indeed you were correct. The MPC834x series meets my requirements. > It is also a 3.3V PCI device, so I'm checking into whether > the Trenton CPUs I can use as host CPUs use a 3.3V PCI interface. > If that is the case, then I'll move the Force CPUs into another > system, and I'll just define the cPCI bus in the correlator > system as 3.3V-only. Ahhh. ;-) > The potential advantages of the MPC834x over the 440EP are; > > - it has doorbell registers and mailboxes for PCI > host-to-host comms (though does not have an I2O interface) > > - its DDR-SDRAM controller can run faster than the 440EP > > - its external local bus is wider and faster than > the 440EP > > - but I think the MPC834x internal buses are slower than > the 440EP CoreConnect buses, so I'll need to benchmark > to compare the two. > > - it exists! I can find them on distributors web sites > (can't say the same for the 440EP yet!) Hmmm. The 440EP is around for quite a while. I would be surprised if you couldn't buy those parts right now. But I have to admit, I never tried to. I would contact my AMCC distributor for availability... Best regards, Stefan