[U-Boot] [PATCH] [83xx] Adds two more ethernet interface to 83xx

Kim Phillips
2008-09-25T20:45:46Z

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:25:20 -0400
richardretanubun <richardretanubun@ruggedcom.com> wrote:

> Kim Phillips wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:53:24 -0400
> > richardretanubun <richardretanubun@ruggedcom.com> wrote:
> >> ---
> >
> > ..i.e, here.
> >
> Understood, thanks for the clarification, will heed for future patches.

excellent, thanks.

> > Having said that, this patch does transcend 4 subsystem areas, so if
> > Ben/gvb/WD want to ack/sign off on it, I can handle pushing this
> > upstream.
> >
> Thanks for the help, I realize this touches many subsystems, but I figured I start at the 83xx community
> since (I think) it is the most probable community to find platforms with these many eth interfaces.

fyi, 85xx does too (and they even have more interface connections on
their boards).

> >> diff --git a/README b/README
> >> index ccd839c..8802304 100644
> >> --- a/README
> >> +++ b/README
> >> @@ -1095,8 +1095,11 @@ The following options need to be configured:
> >>
> >> - Ethernet address:
> >> CONFIG_ETHADDR
> >> + CONFIG_ETH1ADDR
> >> CONFIG_ETH2ADDR
> >
> > hmm..historically ETHADDR has been the implicit ETH1ADDR. Did you mean
> > to s/ETHADDR/ETH1ADDR/ ? if so, you'd need a better justification and
> > a much larger patch. Otherwise, please don't do this; add a
> > CONFIG_ETH6ADDR below instead.
> >
> I will add CONFIG_ETH6ADDR below.

wait, no, CONFIG_ETH1ADDR is indeed valid and being used. It's good
you're adding this to the documentation to not confuse people like
myself - ack! and no need to add ETH6ADDR below either.

> >> +++ b/common/cmd_bdinfo.c
> >> @@ -91,11 +91,12 @@ int do_bdinfo ( cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char *argv[])
> >> print_str ("pevfreq", strmhz(buf, bd->bi_pevfreq));
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> +#if defined(CONFIG_HAS_ETH0)
> >> puts ("ethaddr =");
> >> for (i=0; i<6; ++i) {
> >> printf ("%c%02X", i ? ':' : ' ', bd->bi_enetaddr[i]);
> >> }
> >> -
> >> +#endif
> >
> > how is the above change relevant to the patch subject?
> Good catch, I lumped it together because I was in the code neighborhood
> got carried away in making the code uniform. I will pull it out of this patch.
>
> Is the idea of adding an #ifdef here valid though?
> If it is, I can submit a separate patch for it.

not sure; I seem to remember some code depending on its existence even
if the board didn't configure any interfaces, but, sure, send a patch
and I'm sure it'll get tested. I'm assuming none of this is for 2008.10
release, btw.

Kim