0
\$\begingroup\$

I have plenty of HR911130A in stock because they are small and directly compatible with Raspberry PI.

For another project, the reference design recommends the 7498010210A connector, which is slightly different.

Would it be ok to use the HR911130A instead of the 7498010210A?

enter image description here enter image description here

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ It depends on what is the device/chip and what it requires from the magjack. \$\endgroup\$
    – Justme
    Commented Jun 3, 2022 at 17:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ I am using a DP83822IRHBR PHY \$\endgroup\$
    – nowox
    Commented Jun 3, 2022 at 17:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ It should work at a pinch. However if you're designing a commercial product you'd want to do tests to verify the performance. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kartman
    Commented Jun 4, 2022 at 6:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kartman What should I do with P5..P9. Tie them to ground? \$\endgroup\$
    – nowox
    Commented Jun 4, 2022 at 17:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ probably short them. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kartman
    Commented Jun 5, 2022 at 8:26

2 Answers 2

0
\$\begingroup\$

which is slightly different.

slightly?

Well, the first one (2 pairs) is for 10/100 Base-T a.k.a. Fast Ethernet while the other one (4 pairs) is for 1000 Base-T a.k.a. Gigabit Ethernet.

... the reference design recommends the 7498010210A connector

100 Base-T hardware and signalling can be used with 1000 Base-T. So yes, you can use your existing 4 pair magjack with your 10/100 Base-T application.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

Not quite: the LED pin-out is different. Though, it's possible that only the numbering scheme is different, even though the same physical pins are used in both connectors.

Regardless, we can't tell for sure without looking at the PCB layout.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.