[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 2/5] Add Ethernet hardware MAC address framework to usbnet

[Simon Glass]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:
> > Dear Simon Glass,
> >
> > In message <BANLkTikGucjpun2RhS2T2Nyq4_KB9gK8zw at mail.gmail.com> you
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> +             eth = &usb_eth[usb_max_eth_dev].eth_dev;
> >> >
> >> > Index for eth is usb_max_eth_dev.
> >> >
> >> >> @@ -100,7 +102,10 @@ static void probe_valid_drivers(struct
> usb_device *> dev)
> >> >>                        * call since eth_current_> changed (internally
> called)
> >> >>                        * relies on it
> >> >>                        */
> >> >> -                     eth_register(&usb_eth[usb_max_eth_dev -
> 1].eth_dev);
> >> >> +                     eth_register(eth);
> >> >
> >> > You change the behaviour here.  Please confirmt his is really
> >> > intentional.
> >>
> >> Yes. Since I am using an 'eth' pointer I don't need to index the array
> >> again. The behaviour is the same as before.
> >
> > No, it is not.  Before, we were accessing entry N-1 here. Now we use
> > entry N.  usb_max_eth_dev != usb_max_eth_dev - 1
>
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> Hmmm. If you see the usb_max_eth_dev++ below, it is increasing the
> index variable to keep eth_register() happy. I have kept that
> behaviour.
>
> So let's say usb_max_eth_dev is 3. The sequence is:
>
> - set eth to point to item 3
> - increase usb_max_eth_dev to 4 as required by eth_register()
> - call eth_register() with item 3 (i.e. eth pointer hasn't changed)
> - call eth_write_hwaddr with item 3
>
> Maybe look at the whole code with my patch applied?
>
> Let me know if I am missing something.
>
>
Hi Wolfgang,

Please can you let me know where we stand with this patch? It is a bit
opaque and if you don't mind me reaching a bit further I might be able to
clean it up by changing eth_register().

Thanks,
Simon