From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@ge.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:07:54 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] [83xx] Adds two more ethernet interface to
 83xx
In-Reply-To: <48E0CD6C.90202@ruggedcom.com>
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>
	<48E0CD6C.90202@ruggedcom.com>
Message-ID: <48E0D32A.1030602@ge.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

Hi Richard & Wolfgang,

richardretanubun wrote:
> 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.

I was the most vocal "everybody", but my counterproposal thoughts were 
poorly developed.  Until I or someone else has (takes) the time to 
develop a viable alternative, I don't have any problem with your current 
solution.

When the next sucker tries to extend from six to eight ethernets, maybe 
we will develop a scalable alternative that is viable.  :-/

[snip]

> Cheers,
> - Richard

Thanks,
gvb