From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <4922D920.6080205@freescale.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:02:56 -0500 From: Michael Barkowski MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Gibson Subject: Re: [PATCH] mpc832x_rdb: fix swapped ethernet ids References: <491C4544.7020707@freescale.com> <20081113234507.GB32024@yookeroo.seuss> <491D9643.4010204@freescale.com> <20081115022637.GC6629@yookeroo.seuss> <49219BC4.7050803@freescale.com> <20081118001740.GA26336@yookeroo.seuss> In-Reply-To: <20081118001740.GA26336@yookeroo.seuss> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , David Gibson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:28:52AM -0500, Michael Barkowski wrote: >> David Gibson wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:16:19AM -0500, Michael Barkowski wrote: >>>> David Gibson wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:18:28AM -0500, Michael Barkowski wrote: >>>>>> ethernet0 (called FSL UEC0 in U-Boot) should be enet1 (UCC3/eth1), and >>>>>> ethernet1 should be enet0 (UCC2/eth0), to be consistent with U-Boot so >>>>>> that the interfaces do not swap addresses when control passes from >>>>>> U-Boot to the kernel. >>>>> Um.. why is just swapping the aliases, rather than the enet labels the >>>>> right approach here? >>>> Kim suggested it was better to localize the port ordering as a >>>> property of the board rather than that of the QE, and I agreed. >>> And the enet0/enet1 names that appear in the labels come from the QE >>> documentation? >>> >> No.. but don't you think the UCC2, UCC3 names, which *do* come from >> the QE documentation, should match their labels in numeric ordering? >> Aren't the aliases just machine-specific shortcuts for the >> bootloader? > > Ok, that's reasonable (although personally I would have thought it > would make more sense for the labels to be based on the documentation > terms, so UCC2, UCC3 etc., as we do on 4xx). > Yeah, that would make sense to me too. Although I guess that's a separate patch/issue, since the enet0/enet1 labelling is pretty common across 85xx/83xx. thanks, -- Michael