Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 08/11 v1] ARM: OMAP3: Add I2C and network support
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: [PATCH 08/11 v1] ARM: OMAP3: Add I2C and network support
From: Dirk Behme [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add I2C and network support
I2C and network bits are kinda unrelated, don't you think?
snip
Index: u-boot_master/net/eth.c
===
--- u-boot_master.orig/net/eth.c
+++ u-boot_master/net/eth.c
@@ -508,7 +508,7 @@ extern int emac4xx_miiphy_initialize(bd_
extern int mcf52x2_miiphy_initialize(bd_t *bis);
extern int ns7520_miiphy_initialize(bd_t *bis);
extern int davinci_eth_miiphy_initialize(bd_t *bis);
-
+extern int eth_init(bd_t *bd);
int eth_initialize(bd_t *bis)
{
@@ -532,6 +532,9 @@ int eth_initialize(bd_t *bis)
#if defined(CONFIG_DRIVER_TI_EMAC)
davinci_eth_miiphy_initialize(bis);
#endif
+#if defined(CONFIG_DRIVER_SMC911X)
+ eth_init(bis);
This isn't the right place to call eth_init(). I know the namespaces are
pretty convoluted, but the eth_initialize() family of functions are
intended to do things like register devices, initialize data structures
etc. without actually enabling the device. eth_init() enables a device.
The SMC911X driver doesn' t have such a thing, which is why none of the
other boards that use this chip have anything in this file.
+#endif
return 0;
}
#endif
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 08/11 v1] ARM: OMAP3: Add I2C and network support
Ben Warren wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: [PATCH 08/11 v1] ARM: OMAP3: Add I2C and network support
From: Dirk Behme [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add I2C and network support
I2C and network bits are kinda unrelated, don't you think?
snip
Ben: Yes, you are right ;) The OMAP3 patch is ~300k and I tried to put
this in as less patches as possible while having no patch 40k. This
resulted in some more or less unrelated code in one patch. Alternative
would be to have more than the ~11 patches at the list we already have.
Index: u-boot_master/net/eth.c
===
--- u-boot_master.orig/net/eth.c
+++ u-boot_master/net/eth.c
@@ -508,7 +508,7 @@ extern int emac4xx_miiphy_initialize(bd_
extern int mcf52x2_miiphy_initialize(bd_t *bis);
extern int ns7520_miiphy_initialize(bd_t *bis);
extern int davinci_eth_miiphy_initialize(bd_t *bis);
-
+extern int eth_init(bd_t *bd);
int eth_initialize(bd_t *bis)
{
@@ -532,6 +532,9 @@ int eth_initialize(bd_t *bis)
#if defined(CONFIG_DRIVER_TI_EMAC)
davinci_eth_miiphy_initialize(bis);
#endif
+#if defined(CONFIG_DRIVER_SMC911X)
+eth_init(bis);
This isn't the right place to call eth_init(). I know the namespaces are
pretty convoluted, but the eth_initialize() family of functions are
intended to do things like register devices, initialize data structures
etc. without actually enabling the device. eth_init() enables a device.
The SMC911X driver doesn' t have such a thing, which is why none of the
other boards that use this chip have anything in this file.
Mani, Steve: Any comments on this?
Ben: Any hint where in existing code it is done right to take this as
example?
Thanks
Dirk
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 08/11 v1] ARM: OMAP3: Add I2C and network support
Dirk Behme wrote:
Ben Warren wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: [PATCH 08/11 v1] ARM: OMAP3: Add I2C and network support
From: Dirk Behme [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add I2C and network support
I2C and network bits are kinda unrelated, don't you think?
snip
Ben: Yes, you are right ;) The OMAP3 patch is ~300k and I tried to put
this in as less patches as possible while having no patch 40k. This
resulted in some more or less unrelated code in one patch. Alternative
would be to have more than the ~11 patches at the list we already have.
Index: u-boot_master/net/eth.c
===
--- u-boot_master.orig/net/eth.c
+++ u-boot_master/net/eth.c
@@ -508,7 +508,7 @@ extern int emac4xx_miiphy_initialize(bd_
extern int mcf52x2_miiphy_initialize(bd_t *bis);
extern int ns7520_miiphy_initialize(bd_t *bis);
extern int davinci_eth_miiphy_initialize(bd_t *bis);
-
+extern int eth_init(bd_t *bd);
int eth_initialize(bd_t *bis)
{
@@ -532,6 +532,9 @@ int eth_initialize(bd_t *bis)
#if defined(CONFIG_DRIVER_TI_EMAC)
davinci_eth_miiphy_initialize(bis);
#endif
+#if defined(CONFIG_DRIVER_SMC911X)
+eth_init(bis);
This isn't the right place to call eth_init(). I know the namespaces
are pretty convoluted, but the eth_initialize() family of functions
are intended to do things like register devices, initialize data
structures etc. without actually enabling the device. eth_init()
enables a device. The SMC911X driver doesn' t have such a thing,
which is why none of the other boards that use this chip have
anything in this file.
Mani, Steve: Any comments on this?
Ben: Any hint where in existing code it is done right to take this as
example?
eth_init() will get called in NetLoop() (net/net.c) whenever you send a
packet. You should never have to call it explicitly. There doesn't
appear to be a separate driver initialization for this controller.
Thanks
Dirk
regards,
Ben
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
