[U-Boot] [PATCH v5] Marvell MV88F6281GTW_GE Board support

[Ben Warren]

Hi Prafulla,

On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Prafulla Wadaskar <prafulla at marvell.com>wrote:

>
> >       + * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
> >       + * Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston,
> >       + * MA 02110-1301 USA
> >       + */
> >       +
> >
> >       +#include <common.h>
> >       +#include <../drivers/net/phy/mv88e61xx.h>
> >
> > If this header is meant to be public it should be in
> > "include".  Sorry I didn't catch that earlier.
> > <snip>
> This header has some public and some driver specific information
> Only a configuration structure in this file is needed here,
> I can put it in netdev.h but I didn't find such implementation there.
> How about creating a new header file for phy/switch?
>
I think it's appropriate to put the struct definition and public prototypes
in netdev.h.  There's a lot of work in progress regarding PHYs, and I may
move the prototypes later, but for now netdev is it.  Unless the
driver-specific stuff will be used in the future by other drivers, we may as
well move it back to the .c file.  I know, I know, I made you create the
header file in the first place :)  Would you believe that some people have
called me indecisive?

>
> >
> >       +/*
> >       + * Ethernet Driver configuration
> >       + */
> >       +#ifdef CONFIG_CMD_NET
> >       +#define CONFIG_NETCONSOLE      /* include NetConsole
> > support   */
> >       +#define CONFIG_NET_MULTI       /* specify more that
> > one ports available */
> >       +#define        CONFIG_MII              /* expose smi
> > ove miiphy interface */
> >       +#define CONFIG_KIRKWOOD_EGIGA  /* Enable kirkwood Gbe
> > Controller Driver */
> >
> > This EGIGA driver hasn't been accepted yet.  In fact, I think
> > you've only sent one spin.  It needs to be in before this board...
> You are correct,
> I am ready with the latest spin, but it has close dependency with kirkwood
> SoC layer, once this gets through I had a plan to release egiga driver
> patch. BTW code builds cleanly without egiga driver so I do not want to
> remove this :-) since it will be required afterward once kirkwood_egiga
> driver gets in.
> Any suggestion welcomed ???
>
No, this seems OK.  Like you say, it builds cleanly without.  As long as
they make it into the same release everything should be cool.

>
> Regards..
> Prafulla . .
>

Thanks for all your hard work.

regards,
Ben