On Fri 2014-07-11 17:27:38, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Pavel Machek,
>
> In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
> > When there's no ethernet address available, u-boot currently prints
> > "could not set ethernet address", but fails to mention that there's no
> > address it could set. Make it a bit less confusing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
> >
> > diff --git a/net/eth.c b/net/eth.c
> > index 99386e3..b72ae84 100644
> > --- a/net/eth.c
> > +++ b/net/eth.c
> > @@ -179,10 +179,12 @@ int eth_write_hwaddr(struct eth_device *dev, const
> > char *base_name,
> > dev->name);
> > }
> >
> > - if (dev->write_hwaddr &&
> > - !eth_mac_skip(eth_number)) {
> > - if (!is_valid_ether_addr(dev->enetaddr))
> > + if (dev->write_hwaddr && !eth_mac_skip(eth_number)) {
> > + if (!is_valid_ether_addr(dev->enetaddr)) {
> > + printf("\nError: %s ethernet address not valid: %pM\n",
> > + dev->name, dev->enetaddr);
>
> Sorry, but this is not really helpful. "Not set" and "not valid" are
> different things. "Not valid" might be confusing when none is set at
> all.
Well, it is what the code checks for.
> Also, if I understand correctly, we will now have _two_ error messages
> ("ethernet address not valid" followed by "could not set ethernet
> address")? That's not so nice either.
Ok, would it be acceptable to change 'count not set' message to 'could
not set or invalid address' and print the address as well?
Best regards,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
