This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

DM6446 MDIO not connection to SMSC LAN9193i SMI slave interface

Hi,

My customer is trying to connect DM6446 MDIO to SMSC LAN9193i SMI slave interface.
But he can not read/write the non-standard extended addressing mapped registers.

According to LAN9193i datasheet, the host processor is required to perform two consecutive 16-bit reads/writes to complete a single DWORD transfer.

So, does anyone know whether  DM6446 MDIO support SMI slave interface or not?, DM6446 MDIO can perform two consecutive 16-bit reads/writes?

Your quick response would be great appreciated!

Best regards,
j-breeze

 


 

  • j-breeze,

    I don't think that the DM6446 MDIO supports SMI or consecutive read/writes outside of the MDIO Clause 22 framing.

    -Tommy

  • Tommy-san,

    Thank you for your prompt reply.

    I'll check the Clause, but it's hard for me because I'm not familiar IEEE 802.3.
    So, could you please let me know how I can make sure your information?

    And, dose DM6446 MDIO polling function(*1) inside of the MDIO Clauses?

      (*1)  Once the MDIO module is enabled, the MDIO interface state machine continuously  polls
               the PHY link status(by reading the generic status register) of all possible 32 PHY  addresses...

    Thanks in advance for your cooperation

    Best regards,
    j-breeze  

  • My understanding of the MDIO clause is that it defines the data packet framing for communication.  The PHY manufacturer should be able to tell you if it can function within Clause 22 or not.  Here's a website that google picked up for "mdio clause 22": http://www.totalphase.com/support/kb/10042/

    The MDIO module should be using Clause 22 for the polling.

    -Tommy

  • Tommy-san,

    Thanks you for your information.  It was so palin that I understood.
    And, PHY manufacturer SMSC told me the function was not within Clause 22.

    Best regards,
    j-breeze