[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] [83xx] Adds two more ethernet interface to 83xx

[richardretanubun]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:

> Dear richardretanubun,
>
> In message <48DC0652.5030409 at ruggedcom.com> you wrote:
>> +++ b/README
>> @@ -1097,6 +1097,9 @@ The following options need to be configured:
>>  		CONFIG_ETHADDR
>>  		CONFIG_ETH2ADDR
>>  		CONFIG_ETH3ADDR
>> +		CONFIG_ETH4ADDR
>> +		CONFIG_ETH5ADDR
>> +		CONFIG_ETH6ADDR
>
> Sorry, but I still don't get why CONFIG_ETH1ADDR isn't there?
>
> This will make the loop in fdt_fixup_ethernet() terminate unexpectedly
> early.
>
Sorry Wolfgang, the V2 is sent before I red Kim's !ack 
about the comments on CONFIG_ETH1ADDR being the implicit CONFIG_ETHADDR (which is not true)

Please disregard V2. V1 is correct, except for this change:

diff --git a/common/cmd_bdinfo.c b/common/cmd_bdinfo.c
>> index f4d9d40..67cc64f 100644
>> --- a/common/cmd_bdinfo.c
>> +++ b/common/cmd_bdinfo.c
>> @@ -91,11 +91,12 @@ int do_bdinfo ( cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char *argv[])
>>  	print_str ("pevfreq",	    strmhz(buf, bd->bi_pevfreq));
>>  #endif
>>  
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_HAS_ETH0)
>>  	puts ("ethaddr     =");
>>  	for (i=0; i<6; ++i) {
>>  		printf ("%c%02X", i ? ':' : ' ', bd->bi_enetaddr[i]);
>>  	}
>> -
>> +#endif
>
>[KP] how is the above change relevant to the patch subject?
[RR] Good catch, I lumped it together because I was in the code neighborhood 
     and got carried away in making the code uniform. I will pull it out of this patch.


- Richard