On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Andy Fleming wrote: > > I thought about this some more, and the problem is that cpu_eth_init() > > and board_eth_init() are mutually exclusive, with board_eth_init() having > > a higher priority. I think the following will work, but would appreciate > > some feedback. > > I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. Imagine, for instance, an > 85xx board that (for some reason) has on-board ethernet. I believe > some of the DS systems do this. So the 85xx has 4 nics which the SOC > knows how to initialize. But the board has an additional driver to > init. Why not just allow them both?
Image a board that doesn't want all CPU (SoC) interfaces to get initialized. If for such a board a cpu-specific init routine exists, there is no chance to not enable (init) all those cpu interfaces as done in cpu_eth_init(). With this approach of mutually exclusive routines, it could define it's board_eth_init() and init only the Soc interfaces really needed. Plus additional ones of course. Does this make sense? Best regards, Stefan ===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
