[U-Boot-Users] Valid EMAC address

[U-Boot-Users] Valid EMAC address

[Mathieu Deschamps]

Hello ,

I've just found that an invalid EMAC address -I guess-  I've given to test,  
was the reason for all NET_COMMANDS (ping, tftpboot and the like) to gently 
fail without any errors whereas NET_DEBUG and ET_DEBUG were definied.

Indeed, I've change supposed invalid addr 47:55:47:55:47:55:aa to
12:43:56:78:90:aa and it worked. So here I come and apolozige in advance
if somebody already answered theses, I haven't found anything relevant in
archives  :

How to determin if a EMAC is valid/legal ? Why u-boot doesn't implement 
such a validiy test -at least when debugging is defined- in order to defeat 
that strange developper reflex, looking for _the_ inexisting bug ?



Best Regards,
 
Mathieu Deschamps

--
Com2gether Design Center
Electronic and Embedded Engineering Services
www.com2gether.net 

[U-Boot-Users] Valid EMAC address

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <200603271001.51241.mathieu.deschamps@com2gether.net> you wrote:
> 
> I've just found that an invalid EMAC address -I guess-  I've given to test,  
> was the reason for all NET_COMMANDS (ping, tftpboot and the like) to gently 
> fail without any errors whereas NET_DEBUG and ET_DEBUG were definied.

You are charged with the felony of not reading the FAQ.

> if somebody already answered theses, I haven't found anything relevant in
> archives  :

Grrrrghhh... and what is this:
http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/DULG/EthernetDoesNotWork ???

> How to determin if a EMAC is valid/legal ? Why u-boot doesn't implement 

READ THE FAQ!!!

> such a validiy test -at least when debugging is defined- in order to defeat 
> that strange developper reflex, looking for _the_ inexisting bug ?

Quote:

"UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things,  because
that would also stop you from doing clever things."       - Doug Gwyn


Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided
by the number of people in the group.

[U-Boot-Users] Valid EMAC address

[Mathieu Deschamps]

>
> You are charged with the felony of not reading the FAQ.
>
Damned, I'am all done ! I plead innocence ! I have eighteen childreen, an 
horrible headache and my feet hurts badly plus I lost my favorite bookmarks ( 
with the FAQ link ) in a evil rm -rf * :) 
>
> > if somebody already answered theses, I haven't found anything relevant in
> > archives  :
>
> Grrrrghhh... and what is this:
> http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/DULG/EthernetDoesNotWork ???
>
Oh. well. indeed. very nice. 
>
> > How to determin if a EMAC is valid/legal ? Why u-boot doesn't implement
>
> READ THE FAQ!!!
>
>
> > such a validiy test -at least when debugging is defined- in order to
> > defeat that strange developper reflex, looking for _the_ inexisting bug ?
>
> Quote:
>
> "UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things,  because
> that would also stop you from doing clever things."       - Doug Gwyn
>
"I know it : that is why I do it :)" 
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk

Thank to you Wolfgang, thanks Ben.

Best Regards.

-- 
Mathieu Deschamps
Com2gether Design Center
Electronic and Embedded Engineering Services
www.com2gether.net 

[U-Boot-Users] [U-Boot-Users]

[Lacressonniere Nicolas]

Hi Wolfgang,

I have just a quick question on U-Boot GIT repositories.
I usually clone U-Boot from http://www.denx.de/git/u-boot.git . But I found
another repository at git.kernel.org/pub/scm/boot/u-boot/u-boot.git

When I compile U-Boot cloned from kernel.org, I have a version which is
something like "U-Boot-1.1.4-jfuihfhue-dirty". So could you explain me what
is that repository. Is is something "unofficial"?

Thanks in advance.
Nicolas.

[U-Boot-Users] [U-Boot-Users]

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Niclas,

in message <KAEELLICOFHDAEPIACDEMEDGCHAA.nicolas.lacressonniere@rfo.atmel.com> you wrote:
> 
> I have just a quick question on U-Boot GIT repositories.
> I usually clone U-Boot from http://www.denx.de/git/u-boot.git . But I found

That's ok. This is the only official GIT repo/

> another repository at git.kernel.org/pub/scm/boot/u-boot/u-boot.git

This is a private GIT repo by one contributor. It's his way  to  pass
information to me, and to me only. Do not use this.

> When I compile U-Boot cloned from kernel.org, I have a version which is
> something like "U-Boot-1.1.4-jfuihfhue-dirty". So could you explain me what
> is that repository. Is is something "unofficial"?

It's not for publich use (unless you know exactly  why  you're  using
it).

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
You cannot propel yourself forward by patting yourself on the back.

[U-Boot-Users] Valid EMAC address

[Ben Warren]

Mathieu,

I know Wolfgang has already answered, and the answer is indeed in the
FAQ.  There is a lot of other good info there that you should see.
Anyway, when assigning a MAC, there are a couple of bits that it's
always good to know about:

bit 40 (01:00:00:00:00:00) indicates a multicast address.  This should
never be set on your primary listening address.  Depending what
protocols you're using, there may be several multicast addresses that
you listen on, but you should never program this yourself.

bit 41 (02:00:00:00:00:00) indicates that this is a private address.
You should never ship a product that has this bit set if it is to
interface with a public network (i.e. one containing devices by other
manufacturers), but you are free to set it for internal use.  

To be safe, I always use 02:00:xx:xx:xx:xx in the lab and then buy a
range of unicast addresses from IEEE for shipping product.  Here's where
you get them:

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/msc/MSCRacInfo/FAQ%20Registration%
20Authority%20Revised.htm

regards,
Ben

ou are proOn Mon, 2006-03-27 at 10:01 +0200, Mathieu Deschamps wrote:
> Hello ,
> 
> I've just found that an invalid EMAC address -I guess-  I've given to test,  
> was the reason for all NET_COMMANDS (ping, tftpboot and the like) to gently 
> fail without any errors whereas NET_DEBUG and ET_DEBUG were definied.
> 
> Indeed, I've change supposed invalid addr 47:55:47:55:47:55:aa to
> 12:43:56:78:90:aa and it worked. So here I come and apolozige in advance
> if somebody already answered theses, I haven't found anything relevant in
> archives  :
> 
> How to determin if a EMAC is valid/legal ? Why u-boot doesn't implement 
> such a validiy test -at least when debugging is defined- in order to defeat 
> that strange developper reflex, looking for _the_ inexisting bug ?
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
>  
> Mathieu Deschamps
> 
> --
> Com2gether Design Center
> Electronic and Embedded Engineering Services
> www.com2gether.net 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot-Users mailing list
> U-Boot-Users at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users