From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 20 Mar 02 09:11:10 PST From: msokolov@ivan.Harhan.ORG (Michael Sokolov) Message-Id: <0203201711.AA10183@ivan.Harhan.ORG> To: linux-galileo@source.mvista.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Wolfgang Denk wrote: > I'm getting a bit tired about this discussion. I got tired a long time ago. > We start with siome > nice ideas, then some open issues pop up, and instead of trying to > find a solution we drop everything again. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No, we don't drop everything again, there is my patch, and Mark said he'll push it if there is no consensus in the next few days, which I've already bet $50 on. > For instance. Hey, but we are talking about a very, very special case > here - when you have set of non-standard controllers which don't know > their own addresses _and_ need to get a specific assignment _and_ you > don't know the initialization sequence _and_ ... > > For 98% of all practical purposes it will be sufficient to pass the > list of MAC addresses, and for 1.95% it will be sufficient to combine > the MAC address with information about the driver type (GT, 82xx, > ...). But this is lousy logic, it's this kind of logic (it's OK for 98% of cases) that has given us the crap we have right now. Just what is wrong with my solution of BI_GT64260_ETH_CFG, BI_8260_ETH_CFG, BI_8XX_ETH_CFG, etc? MS ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/