From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Shinya Kuribayashi <skuribay@ruby.dti.ne.jp>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:16:41 +0900
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Add mechanisms for CPU
 and	board-specific Ethernet initialization
In-Reply-To: <f8328f7c0806100653v1a4d632dv397d0d06696198f4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1213086567-29194-1-git-send-email-biggerbadderben@gmail.com>	<200806101112.00887.sr@denx.de>
	<f8328f7c0806100653v1a4d632dv397d0d06696198f4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <484E9AD9.2060802@ruby.dti.ne.jp>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Ben Warren wrote:
>>> @@ -165,6 +171,10 @@ int eth_initialize(bd_t *bis)
>>>  #if defined(CONFIG_MII) || defined(CONFIG_CMD_MII)
>>>       miiphy_init();
>>>  #endif
>>> +     /* Try CPU-specific initialization first.  If it fails or isn't
>>> +      * present, call the board-specific initialization */
>>> +     if (cpu_eth_init(bis) < 0 )
>> Nitpicking: No space before ")" please.
> Huh, don't know how I missed that one.
>>> +             board_eth_init(bis);
>> Shouldn't this be the other way around?
>>
>> +       if (board_eth_init(bis) < 0)
>> +               eth_eth_init(bis);
>>
>> So that the board init routine can "overwrite" the cpu init version.
>>
> Yeah, I think you're right.  If board_eth_init() exists, it gets
> highest priority.

Just wondered, does that mean we could only have either cpu_eth_init or
board_eth_init at a time?