From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: "Mark A. Greer" Cc: Michael Sokolov , linux-galileo@source.mvista.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs From: Wolfgang Denk Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:00:17 EST." <3C97C301.B5A95C8B@mvista.com> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 08:55:36 +0100 Message-Id: <20020320075541.1A5DE109F3@denx.denx.de> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: In message <3C97C301.B5A95C8B@mvista.com> you wrote: > > > The BI_ETH_CFG has already been shot down so we don't need to worry about it > anyway. Has been shot down? When? Where? Why? Am I missing something? So how are we going to solve this issue - in 2.4 and 2.5? We need to deal with boards with more than one ethernet interface, which are already active in the firmware (net-booting from redundand interfaces, using separate MAC addresses). > > Ethernet driver, or where? How do you make sure that each Ethernet interface > > gets the MAC address that belongs to it? We added an index field to BI_ETH_CFG, didn't we? The driver would then "know" how to map this... > This is a good point and this is an issue with any generic ethernet bi_rec > scheme. At this point, I'm back to preferring what you've done since...well...its > done and I don't see anyone else caring much about this for other drivers. We _do_ care, a little for 8xx, very much for 8260, also for 824x and 4xx. Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd@denx.de Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. - Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982 ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/