From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from VA3EHSOBE008.bigfish.com (va3ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.16]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA93BB718B for ; Sat, 4 Sep 2010 00:50:24 +1000 (EST) Subject: RE: P1021MDS QE Ethernet Ports From: Haiying Wang To: Ioannis Kokkoris In-Reply-To: References: , ,<1283434368.2904.2.camel@udp120119uds.am.freescale.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:39:47 -0400 Message-ID: <1283524788.2930.6.camel@udp120119uds.am.freescale.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2010-03-09 at 10:05 +0300, Ioannis Kokkoris wrote: > We are using a board revision 2 (pilot version). Our main concern is whether this issue affects the working UCC1 eth interface performance. No, it won't affect the performance. We got line rate for performance for UECs on this board. > Do you think that removing or pulling-down R79 (pin 21@U11) will fix the problem with ENET1? I don't know. > > You can connect two UECs for your current development. > > Do you mean that changing the ENET1 interface from UCC1 to UCC3 in dts may solve the problem? No, I did not mean that. Only UCC1 and UCC5 are wired out for Ethernet mode on this board, you can not change the UCC#. I meant, you should have both UCC1/UCC5(ENET1/ENET5) connected with Ethernet cable. Haiying