On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Ben Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
>
> > +extern int macb_eth_initialize(int id, void *regs, unsigned int phy_addr);
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CMD_NET
> > +void hammerhead_eth_initialize(bd_t *bi)
> > +{
> > + macb_eth_initialize(0, (void *)MACB0_BASE, bi->bi_phy_id[0]);
> > +}
> > +#endif
> >
>
> Would you mind changing this name to board_eth_initialize(bd_t *bi)?
> I'm working on a rework of the net library and making this name change
> now will avoid doing it later. I think you'll be able to figure out
> where this is going...
Hm. I have a patch to clean up tsec initialization a bit. I'm
wondering how this affects the tsec (and my patch). And there are
other issues with calling the function something generic like that.
The Freescale SOCs have 2 or more (I think we have 5 on one of our
chips) TSEC devices. How do you deal with separating out multiple
controllers?
Also, won't this break if you have more than one type of controller on a board?
Andy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
U-Boot-Users mailing list
U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
