On 03. 02. 20 18:16, Michael Walle wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Am 2020-01-30 03:16, schrieb Simon Glass: >> Hi Michael, >> >> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 06:29, Michael Walle <mich...@walle.cc> wrote: >>> >>> If there are aliases for an uclass, set the base for the "dynamically" >>> allocated numbers next to the highest alias. >>> >>> Please note, that this might lead to holes in the sequences, depending >>> on the device tree. For example if there is only an alias "ethernet1", >>> the next device seq number would be 2. >>> >>> In particular this fixes a problem with boards which are using ethernet >>> aliases but also might have network add-in cards like the E1000. If the >>> board is started with the add-in card and depending on the order of the >>> drivers, the E1000 might occupy the first ethernet device and mess up >>> all the hardware addresses, because the devices are now shifted by one. >>> >>> Cc: Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitz...@fitzsim.org> >>> Cc: Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <mich...@walle.cc> >>> Reviewed-by: Alex Marginean <alexandru.margin...@nxp.com> >>> Tested-by: Alex Marginean <alexandru.margin...@nxp.com> >>> Acked-by: Vladimir Oltean <olte...@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> >>> As a side effect, this should also make the following commits >>> superfluous: >>> - 7f3289bf6d ("dm: device: Request next sequence number") >>> - 61607225d1 ("i2c: Fill req_seq in i2c_post_bind()") >>> Although I don't understand the root cause of the said problem. >>> >>> Thomas, Michal, could you please test this and then I'd add a second >>> patch removing the old code. >> >> I think this is reasonable. We have discussed a possible rework of the >> logic to merge seq and req_seq, but I don't think we have any patches >> yet. >> >> Please can you add a test to your patch? You can put it in test-fdt.c >> for example. > > Just did a new version. > >> If you are reverting the other patches, could you please send patches >> for those? > > Unfortunatly, neither Thomas nor Michal has responded, so there would be > no test if that would work. But I could certainly prepare two patches.
I still have this in my inbox to take a look and retest. I just don't have time to take a look at it now. I have tested this code on board with i2c mux where I was trying to change aliases. Thanks, Michal