From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Shinya Kuribayashi <skuribay@ruby.dti.ne.jp>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:49:51 +0900
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Add mechanisms for CPU and
 board-specific Ethernet initialization
In-Reply-To: <200806101725.37247.sr@denx.de>
References: <1213086567-29194-1-git-send-email-biggerbadderben@gmail.com>
	<f8328f7c0806100653v1a4d632dv397d0d06696198f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<484E9AD9.2060802@ruby.dti.ne.jp> <200806101725.37247.sr@denx.de>
Message-ID: <484EA29F.2080905@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

Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 June 2008, Shinya Kuribayashi wrote:
>>>> 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?
> 
> Not really. board_eth_init() could call cpu_eth_init() if necessary.

Hm. What is cpu_eth_init for then? Just

        board_eth_init(bis);

seems to be enough for me. I also wonder where is the best place to have
cpu_eth_init?

I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just thinking about my targets. One
of my targets has internal ethernet MAC, and its evaluation board has an
on-board external PCI NIC. Another target has internal MAC, but doesn't
have PCI NIC.

I thought it'll be something like

        cpu_eth_init(bis);
        board_eth_init(bis);

But again, I don't have strong opinions around here. Please go ahead.


Thanks for your comments,

  Shinya