On 08/12/2020 04.07, Qiang Zhao wrote: > On 06/12/2020 05:12, Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villem...@prevas.dk> wrote: >
>> I think patch 2 is a bug fix as well, but I'd like someone from NXP to >> comment. > > It 's ok for me. I was hoping for something a bit more than that. Can you please go check with the people who made the hardware and those who wrote the manual (probably not the same ones) what is actually up and down, and then report on what they said. It's fairly obvious that allocating 192 bytes instead of 128 should never hurt (unless we run out of muram), but it would be nice with an official "Yes, table 8-111 is wrong, it should say 192", or alternatively, "No, table 8-53 is wrong, those MTU etc. fields don't really exist". Extra points for providing details such as "first revision of the IP had $foo, but that was never shipped in real products, then $bar was changed", etc. Thanks, Rasmus