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

[Jon Loeliger]

On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 09:40, Dave Ellis wrote:
> 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.

BTW, I am willing to make the change so that the code uses
the symbols:

    CONFIG_HAS_ETH
    CONFIG_HAS_ETH1
    CONFIG_HAS_ETH2
and
    CONFIG_HAS_ETH3

as suggested.  I like it.

However, now I need answers to the following question:  Do you want
me to retrofit code into all the Config files to #define CONFIG_HAS_ETHx
where it currently also has CONFIG_ETHxADDR defined, or where the code
has a board name even though a CONIG_ETHxADDR is not defined too?

Happy to do this, just realize that to be backwards compatible
with existing config files, I'll have to change many config files.
I can not test them all.  I can test the 4 I have in front of me.


FYI, I am also willing to remove the #ifdef conditionality from
the bd_t structure around these ETH addr fields as well, but with
the caveat that it changes other people's bd_t structures and
potentially messes up their Linux interfaces.  Again, I can't
test all that either...

Thanks,
jdl