Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] fdt: rework fdt_fixup_ethernet() to use env instead of bd_t
Dear Kumar Gala, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Move to using the environment variables 'ethaddr', 'eth1addr', etc.. instead of bd-bi_enetaddr, bi_enet1addr, etc. This makes the code a bit more flexible to the number of ethernet interfaces. Right now we assume a max of 10 interfaces. How does this match with our very static way of selecting this using 'CONFIG_HAS_ETHn' #defines? There is no such thing as CONFIG_HAS_ETH8 anywhere in the code... Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The one who says it cannot be done should never interrupt the one who is doing it. ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] fdt: rework fdt_fixup_ethernet() to use env instead of bd_t
On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: Dear Kumar Gala, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Move to using the environment variables 'ethaddr', 'eth1addr', etc.. instead of bd-bi_enetaddr, bi_enet1addr, etc. This makes the code a bit more flexible to the number of ethernet interfaces. Right now we assume a max of 10 interfaces. How does this match with our very static way of selecting this using 'CONFIG_HAS_ETHn' #defines? There is no such thing as CONFIG_HAS_ETH8 anywhere in the code... oops, forgot about that. I think we just have the code exist always (for CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT) - k ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] fdt: rework fdt_fixup_ethernet() to use env instead of bd_t
On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:16 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: Dear Kumar Gala, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Move to using the environment variables 'ethaddr', 'eth1addr', etc.. instead of bd-bi_enetaddr, bi_enet1addr, etc. This makes the code a bit more flexible to the number of ethernet interfaces. Right now we assume a max of 10 interfaces. How does this match with our very static way of selecting this using 'CONFIG_HAS_ETHn' #defines? There is no such thing as CONFIG_HAS_ETH8 anywhere in the code... oops, forgot about that. I think we just have the code exist always (for CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT) 74xx_7xx, mpc8xx, ppc4xx -- called regardless of CONFIG_HAS_ETHn mpc512x -- called only based on HAS_ETH0 mpc8260, mpc83xx, mpc85xx, mpc86xx -- called if HAS_ETH0 || HAS_ETH1 || HAS_ETH2 || HAS_ETH3 With ETH3 being the max today. We have a part (p4080) in the works with 8 interfaces (its unlikely we'll have support for all 8 in u-boot, but do want to be ablity to set mac addresses for all 8.) - k ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] fdt: rework fdt_fixup_ethernet() to use env instead of bd_t
Dear Kumar Gala, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: 74xx_7xx, mpc8xx, ppc4xx -- called regardless of CONFIG_HAS_ETHn mpc512x -- called only based on HAS_ETH0 mpc8260, mpc83xx, mpc85xx, mpc86xx -- called if HAS_ETH0 || HAS_ETH1 || HAS_ETH2 || HAS_ETH3 With ETH3 being the max today. Yes. and I have to admit that I really dislike this static configuration which prevents any loops in the code. We have a part (p4080) in the works with 8 interfaces (its unlikely we'll have support for all 8 in u-boot, but do want to be ablity to set mac addresses for all 8.) I guess we should try to find some clever way of overcoming the old style. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't panic. ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
