[U-Boot] Net driver questions

[Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>]

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:

> it's on purpose because it makes the code simpler -- no need to maintain 
> state.  drivers have to be able to handle halt() irregardless of init().  i 
> dont see this being a problem for anyone.

Ok. Sure, that's not a problem for me, I just noted the README doesn't
talk about this.

>> - dev->recv() seems to be called recursively, for example while doing
>>   "dhcp" or "bootp" (ping is ok). dev->recv() in my driver calls
>>   NetReceive(), which in turn (without returning to the caller, i.e.,
>>   dev->recv(), first) reinitializes the driver on error (calls
>>   dev->halt() and dev->init()). This makes a lot of mess in the driver,
>>   should it stay this way? Perhaps we should queue the received packets
>>   and process them on return from dev->recv()? Or maybe return all those
>>   packets together?
>
> where exactly do you see that call path ?  i dont see it anywhere ...
>
> NetReceive() may call eth_send(), but that only expands into
> dev->send()

Let's look... The code does NetSetHandler(TftpHandler).
I think NetReceive() calls (*packetHandler)() = TftpHandler and this one
may call NetStartAgain().

> the NetRxPackets[] are set up for you by default and are merely a convenience.
> you can use them or not, it doesnt really matter.  after all, your driver is
> what calls NetReceive() and the first argument there is the buffer that you're
> receiving.  none of the internal network code relies on these pointers.

I see. Thanks for your mail.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa