[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH-1/2] LAN91C111
r-woodruff2 at ti.com
Tue Nov 4 20:08:56 CET 2003
The comments about broken boards due with the hardware not wiring up byte
enables. The problem in that case is a board limitation, not a 91c1111.
After you pointed out the mac needs to be unsigned, I went though and
changed "all" mac references. Seems like there were a couple more than your
patch had. The kernel drivers I have for this already have your fix, and
treat mac's correctly through out.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephan Linz [mailto:linz at mazet.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 12:45 PM
> To: Woodruff, Richard; 'wd at denx.de'
> Cc: u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH-1/2] LAN91C111
> I'm just back to NIOS.
> Am Montag, 3. November 2003 19:04 schrieb Woodruff, Richard:
> > As to the 8bit to 16 access change, at both the boot and
> kernel I use
> > 16 bit accesses. I'm ok using 8bit access on my board, but
> based on
> > comments in code and the ifdef's in the shipping kernel code,
> > switching that access size will break a few boards. As word access
> > works, I wouldn't switch that bit.
> Oops, very interesting informations, because the SMSC's
> manuals for LAN91C110
> and LAN91C1111 sayes about SMC91111_INT_REG: "... This
> register can be read
> and write as a word or two individual bytes ...". So I'm
> wondering about a
> few boards will be broken.
> Nevertheless, let's leave it at 16bit access. The NIOS board
> is running in
> both cases, so there is no really important reason to change this bit.
> > As far as testing goes, if it works on my board I'm usually
> happy. My
> > opinion would be if you are submitting new code, it doesn't really
> > matter if it works for anyone else as long as it doesn't break the
> > compile. If its existing code, then some more care is obviously
> > necessary.
> Yes of course, the 16bit to 8 change isn't really important.
> I've thought it
> could be a good minor code generalization. It wasn't my
> intention to make
> broken code.
> So, here my second try. In attachment yo will find the patch
> again without
> this critical change.
> > From a group submission aspect, Wolfgang does a good job of
> > and moderating, and likely applies similar logic for
> submission. He
> > is probably is a bit more stringent in certain areas as the
> code would
> > become more difficult to maintain with out some control.
> Oh yes, he does a good job for us.
> > > From: wd at denx.de [mailto:wd at denx.de]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 9:40 AM
> > > To: Stephan Linz
> > > Cc: Woodruff, Richard; u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> > > Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH-1/2] LAN91C111
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Stephan,
> > >
> > > in message <0311031553480Q.02205 at pcj86> you wrote:
> > > > I'm curious about it. When your test phase / cross check
> > > --8<--snipp-->8--
More information about the U-Boot