[U-Boot-Users] Proposed change; What do you think?

[Dave Ellis]

Jon Loeliger wrote:
> I'd like to get your opinion on a proposed change to a
> few files that handle some aspects of the various enetaddr
> fields as found in asm-ppc/u-boot.h, common/cmd_bdinfo.c
> and lib_ppc/board.c.
> 
> In particular, I'd like to propose a shift from having these
> fields be present when certain boards are #defined to having
> these fields be present when CONFIG_ETH1ADDR symbols are defined.

I like the idea of using a common symbol, but I would prefer a new
one, something like CONFIG_HAS_ETH1, so I can have bi_enet1addr in the
kernel interface without putting a default value for it in the
environment.

> There are only a few boards for which this might make a difference.
> I'm the bit swizzler for most of them (MPC85xxXDS), but the others
> include the PN62, the PPCCHAMEONEVB, the 440GX, the GT_6426x.
> SXNI855T, SVM_SC8xx and possibly the DB64360, DB64460, CATcenter,
> and OCOTEA boards.  The latter define CONFIG_ETH1ADDR but don't
> have their cases include in places like the coomon/cmd_bdinfo.c.

As the SXNI855T maintainer, I don't see any problems with using
CONFIG_ETH1ADDR or CONFIG_HAS_ETH1.

Dave Ellis