[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/5] smc911x: use dev->name in printfs

[Ben Warren]

Hi Mike,

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 November 2009 17:45:10 Ben Warren wrote:
>   
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>     
>>> On Wednesday 11 November 2009 17:24:27 Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> On Wednesday 11 November 2009 16:56:57 Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> It seems that eeprom code is broken since commit
>>>>>> 736fead8fdbf8a8407048bebc373cd551d01ec98: "Convert SMC911X Ethernet
>>>>>> driver to CONFIG_NET_MULTI API".
>>>>>>             
>>>>> broken how ?  i recall it working ...
>>>>>           
>>>> It gives pretty long list of compile errors. The smc911x.h header has
>>>> now 'struct eth_device *dev' parameter in all the functions.
>>>>         
>>> yeah, i see that now.  it wasnt noticed earlier as the config name
>>> changed but the eeprom code wasnt updated.  i can take a look if you like
>>> since i wrote this sucker in the first place.
>>>       
>> You fixed the SMC91111 eeprom code by defining a 'struct eth_dev', but I
>> guess not the SMC9111x.  I'm responsible for making this mess, so if you
>> don't have time I can take care of it (without being able to test, of
>> course :)
>>
>> We can probably still fit such a bug fix in this release if we act quickly.
>>     
>
> here's my [compile] tested change as the board i have with this part isnt
> readily accessible atm ...
> -mike
>   
<snip>
>  	return 0;
> @@ -317,6 +318,11 @@ static char *getline(void)
>   */
>  int smc911x_eeprom(int argc, char *argv[])
>  {
> +	struct eth_device dev = {
> +		.name   = __func__,
>   
Cute

This looks good to me.

Mike R - is there a chance that you can test this out?
If not, I'd argue that even untested it has a fighting chance of working 
and as such is better than what's already in the code base, and should 
be picked up ASAP.

regards,
Ben