David Gibson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:13:05AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: >>Well, no. Even on a given board, it depends on the version of u-boot. >> >>There's nothing after enet1addr that the bootwrapper cares about, >>though, so the only harm is if the device tree has a second network >>interface but u-boot doesn't know about it, and the bootwrapper ends up >>pulling in junk rather than leaving zeroes. > > > That sounds like a terribly fragile way of handling things.
Yes, but that's inherent in the way the bd_t is defined. The robust way is to get device tree support into u-boot. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
