[U-Boot] net: asix: Fix AX88772B when used with DriverModel

Joe Hershberger
2016-09-10T16:28:40Z

Hi Marek,

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> On 09/10/2016 03:34 AM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
>> On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 02:18 +0200, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 01:23 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09/10/2016 01:13 AM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 01:04 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/09/2016 11:06 PM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 13:57 -0500, Joe Hershberger wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Joshua,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/666191/ was applied to
>>>>>>>> u-
>>>>>>>> boot-
>>>>>>>> net.git.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> -Joe
>>>>>>> No, sorry, but this is really the wrong approach! As
>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>> rather than Joshua's patch the one from Alban should long
>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> been applied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot at lists.denx.de/msg221455.h
>>>>>>> tm
>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will send a revert ASAP and hope Alban's patch will finally
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>> way into master to fix this once and for all!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you, instead of sending a revert, just send a subsequent
>>>>>> patch to
>>>>>> fix this once and for all ?
>>>>> Sure, I will just squash my revert and Alban's fix together and
>>>>> send
>>>>> that one along ASAP.
>>>> Thanks
>>> Don't thank me too early yet. While it works on Colibri T20 it
>>> currently fails on Colibri T30. More network and/or USB brokenness...
>>> Currently bisecting...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for taking care of this mess :)
>>>>> You are very welcome.
>>> How I do love U-Boot.
>>
>> And the winner is:
>>
>> commit aa7a648747d8c704a9a81c9e493d386930724e9d
>> Author: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
>> Date: Mon Aug 15 14:42:15 2016 -0500
>>
>> net: Stop including NFS overhead in defragment max
>>
>
> Uh oh, why is this aforementioned patch even correct ? And why don't we
> just revert it ? And why didn't anyone notice any problems with it ?

Before that patch, on at least some platforms, lots of memory was
being wasted just because of trying to single-source the size of NFS
overhead. That patch removed that.

The comment from that patch: "If a board needs a specific different
defragment size, that board can override this setting."

That is the case here.

Cheers,
-Joe