[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH-1/2] LAN91C111

[Woodruff, Richard]

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.

Regards,

Richard W.

> -----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
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 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 
> filtering 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Stephan
> 
> 
> > > 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--
>