On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 13:36:51 +0200 Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/07/2013 01:26 PM, Jonas Gorski wrote: > > On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 12:52:52 +0200 > > Sebastian Hesselbarth<sebastian.hesselba...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Anyway, can you please try to have both ports reg properties set > >> to<0>, with nodes named ethernet0-port@0 and ethernet1-port@0, > >> and the platform_device_alloc in mv643xx_eth modified? > > > > In addition I added a static counter for the allocated devs (to not > > overwrite the pointers in port_platdev[]). > > Ok, but that is not required to make it work, is it? IMHO we should > honor what is passed by reg property, even it will be always zero > for KW and the other Orion SoCs. Otherwise, we would implicitly put > the numbering in the order of port nodes. No, picking the next free "slot" should work, too - it was just the easiest to fix the name for the alloc to what seems to be expected by other parts. > > That seems to work, as now eth1 comes up and works (successfully got a > > IP through DHCP). > > Ok, great. Will prepare a fix for mv643xx_eth on top of net-next. And > an update of the kirkwood conversion patches. Thanks, Jonas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
