From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (relay1.mentorg.com [192.94.38.131]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4724C8007E for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:02:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Qhixx-0006pV-Gw from Tom_Rini@mentor.com for poky@yoctoproject.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:02:05 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:02:05 -0700 Received: from [172.30.80.62] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:02:04 -0700 Message-ID: <4E204856.1030908@mentor.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:01:58 -0700 From: Tom Rini Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <201107141717.19891.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <201107141717.19891.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jul 2011 14:02:05.0291 (UTC) FILETIME=[C72D93B0:01CC42F7] Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] linux-yocto: allow configuration of MAC addresses for mpc8315e-rdb X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:02:06 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 07/14/2011 09:17 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Thursday 14 July 2011 16:57:42 Bruce Ashfield wrote: >> The change looks fine, in the sense that it'll work, but it's a lot of >> hoops to jump through for the mac address. In the past, we've solved this >> by allowing the mac address to be specified via the bootline, which we >> could then simply drop into the boot environment and have it work more >> easily. >> >> I didn't think of this when we were talking about this issue, but now that >> I see the change ... it's been faulted into the right memory banks. >> >> I'll dig up these patches, and we can take them for a spin and hopefully we >> can drop this part of the series. > > If we have a better solution that would make things easier for the user I'd > definitely prefer it over this. I know we mentioned this on IRC, but why not just ask the user to upgrade U-Boot? This isn't a bleeding edge board so that shouldn't be difficult... -- Tom Rini Mentor Graphics Corporation