Stefan Roese wrote: > On Tuesday 10 June 2008, Shinya Kuribayashi wrote: >>>> Shouldn't this be the other way around? >>>> >>>> + if (board_eth_init(bis) < 0) >>>> + eth_eth_init(bis); >>>> >>>> So that the board init routine can "overwrite" the cpu init version. >>> Yeah, I think you're right. If board_eth_init() exists, it gets >>> highest priority. >> Just wondered, does that mean we could only have either cpu_eth_init or >> board_eth_init at a time? > > Not really. board_eth_init() could call cpu_eth_init() if necessary.
Hm. What is cpu_eth_init for then? Just board_eth_init(bis); seems to be enough for me. I also wonder where is the best place to have cpu_eth_init? I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just thinking about my targets. One of my targets has internal ethernet MAC, and its evaluation board has an on-board external PCI NIC. Another target has internal MAC, but doesn't have PCI NIC. I thought it'll be something like cpu_eth_init(bis); board_eth_init(bis); But again, I don't have strong opinions around here. Please go ahead. Thanks for your comments, Shinya ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users