From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gray Remlin <gryrmln@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:36:22 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: Add support for displaying second ethaddr
 in 'bdinfo' command
In-Reply-To: <20110329214930.12634EDFFCF@gemini.denx.de>
References: <1301433395-25203-1-git-send-email-gryrmln@gmail.com>
	<20110329214930.12634EDFFCF@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <4D925EE6.50305@gmail.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

On 03/29/2011 10:49 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Gray Remlin,
>
> In message<1301433395-25203-1-git-send-email-gryrmln@gmail.com>  you wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Gray Remlin<gryrmln@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   common/cmd_bdinfo.c |    3 +++
>>   1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> Why limit this to eth1addr?  What's the chances that ARM systems may
> have more than 2 network interfaces?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
Good question, I have already asked myself this, so I have stuck with 
what I do know.

1. It has had the one ethaddr limit for a (relatively) long time, which 
it seems no-one else 'required'\'submitted a patch' to change it.
2. I only know (with my very limited knowledge) of ARM boards with a 
maximum of two interfaces as standard.
3. Why limit it to six (as in other parts of the source) ?

My answer:
It is not my place to dictate policy, that is the role of the Project 
Manager.
And no, that is not a 'cop-out', it is the only way to avoid anarchy.