On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:25:20 -0400
richardretanubun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kim Phillips wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:53:24 -0400
> > richardretanubun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> ---
> >
> > ..i.e, here.
> >
> Understood, thanks for the clarification, will heed for future patches.
excellent, thanks.
> > Having said that, this patch does transcend 4 subsystem areas, so if
> > Ben/gvb/WD want to ack/sign off on it, I can handle pushing this
> > upstream.
> >
> Thanks for the help, I realize this touches many subsystems, but I figured I
> start at the 83xx community
> since (I think) it is the most probable community to find platforms with
> these many eth interfaces.
fyi, 85xx does too (and they even have more interface connections on
their boards).
> >> diff --git a/README b/README
> >> index ccd839c..8802304 100644
> >> --- a/README
> >> +++ b/README
> >> @@ -1095,8 +1095,11 @@ The following options need to be configured:
> >>
> >> - Ethernet address:
> >> CONFIG_ETHADDR
> >> + CONFIG_ETH1ADDR
> >> CONFIG_ETH2ADDR
> >
> > hmm..historically ETHADDR has been the implicit ETH1ADDR. Did you mean
> > to s/ETHADDR/ETH1ADDR/ ? if so, you'd need a better justification and
> > a much larger patch. Otherwise, please don't do this; add a
> > CONFIG_ETH6ADDR below instead.
> >
> I will add CONFIG_ETH6ADDR below.
wait, no, CONFIG_ETH1ADDR is indeed valid and being used. It's good
you're adding this to the documentation to not confuse people like
myself - ack! and no need to add ETH6ADDR below either.
> >> +++ b/common/cmd_bdinfo.c
> >> @@ -91,11 +91,12 @@ int do_bdinfo ( cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc,
> >> char *argv[])
> >> print_str ("pevfreq", strmhz(buf, bd->bi_pevfreq));
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> +#if defined(CONFIG_HAS_ETH0)
> >> puts ("ethaddr =");
> >> for (i=0; i<6; ++i) {
> >> printf ("%c%02X", i ? ':' : ' ', bd->bi_enetaddr[i]);
> >> }
> >> -
> >> +#endif
> >
> > how is the above change relevant to the patch subject?
> Good catch, I lumped it together because I was in the code neighborhood
> got carried away in making the code uniform. I will pull it out of this patch.
>
> Is the idea of adding an #ifdef here valid though?
> If it is, I can submit a separate patch for it.
not sure; I seem to remember some code depending on its existence even
if the board didn't configure any interfaces, but, sure, send a patch
and I'm sure it'll get tested. I'm assuming none of this is for 2008.10
release, btw.
Kim
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
