On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 20:17:35 +0100
Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clem...@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Hi Ralph,
>
> On mer., mars 08 2017, Ralph Sennhauser <ralph.sennhau...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> </snip>
>
> > @@ -88,6 +89,9 @@
> > ethernet@70000 {
> > status = "okay";
> > phy-mode = "rgmii-id";
> > + buffer-manager = <&bm>;
> > + bm,pool-long = <1>;
> > + bm,pool-short = <3>;
> > fixed-link {
> > speed = <1000>;
> > full-duplex;
> > @@ -97,6 +101,9 @@
> > ethernet@34000 {
> > status = "okay";
> > phy-mode = "sgmii";
> > + buffer-manager = <&bm>;
> > + bm,pool-long = <0>;
> > + bm,pool-short = <3>;
> Any reason to reuse the same pool than the other port?
>
> As only two ports are used here, then each of them can have use 2 of
> the 4 availables pools.
>
> </snip>
Hi Gregory,
It has been quite a while since I have written that patch. Something
written somewhere in the Documentation / commit message which I can't
find anymore gave me the impression that using the same for short
doesn't make a difference. So I went with the pool IDs used for other
similar boards for "consistency".
Will send a v2 shortly using all independent pools using the IDs witch
come most natural in context.
Thanks
Ralph
