From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: richardretanubun <richardretanubun@ruggedcom.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:43:24 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] [83xx] Adds two more ethernet interface to
 83xx
In-Reply-To: <20080925232807.4E641248F9@gemini.denx.de>
References: <48DB89C4.3060204@ruggedcom.com>
	<20080925145035.cebab0df.kim.phillips@freescale.com>
	<48DBF3B0.1090009@ruggedcom.com> <48DC0652.5030409@ruggedcom.com>
	<20080925222439.8858F24851@gemini.denx.de>
	<48DC1637.5000707@ruggedcom.com>
	<20080925232807.4E641248F9@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <48E0CD6C.90202@ruggedcom.com>
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

Wolfgang Denk wrote:

> Dear richardretanubun,
>
> In message <48DC1637.5000707@ruggedcom.com> you wrote:
>> Please disregard V2. V1 is correct, except for this change:
>
> So you will submit a V3?
I am not so sure about it.

This patch came to be when I wanted to make it convenient for using u-boot to test a platform 
with six eth interface without the need of an fdt.
 
However, I seem to have sparked a discussion of a larger scope than I expected. :)

Everyone's comment seems to indicate that streamlining is needed for the network code.
 
I'd hate to muck the existing code some more with more copy-paste just for convenience's sake.

However, if you are ok with V3 being "V1 minus the common/cmd_bdinfo.c #if defined(CONFIG_HAS_ETH0) hunk" 
then I can post this version.

>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
>   
Cheers,

- Richard