[U-Boot] net: asix: Fix AX88772B when used with DriverModel

[Marek Vasut]

On 09/10/2016 06:28 PM, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> Hi Marek,
> 
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>> On 09/10/2016 03:34 AM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 02:18 +0200, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 01:23 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/10/2016 01:13 AM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 01:04 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/09/2016 11:06 PM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 13:57 -0500, Joe Hershberger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Joshua,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/666191/ was applied to
>>>>>>>>> u-
>>>>>>>>> boot-
>>>>>>>>> net.git.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>> -Joe
>>>>>>>> No, sorry, but this is really the wrong approach! As
>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>> rather than Joshua's patch the one from Alban should long
>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> been applied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg221455.h
>>>>>>>> tm
>>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will send a revert ASAP and hope Alban's patch will finally
>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> way into master to fix this once and for all!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you, instead of sending a revert, just send a subsequent
>>>>>>> patch to
>>>>>>> fix this once and for all ?
>>>>>> Sure, I will just squash my revert and Alban's fix together and
>>>>>> send
>>>>>> that one along ASAP.
>>>>> Thanks
>>>> Don't thank me too early yet. While it works on Colibri T20 it
>>>> currently fails on Colibri T30. More network and/or USB brokenness...
>>>> Currently bisecting...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for taking care of this mess :)
>>>>>> You are very welcome.
>>>> How I do love U-Boot.
>>>
>>> And the winner is:
>>>
>>> commit aa7a648747d8c704a9a81c9e493d386930724e9d
>>> Author: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger at ni.com>
>>> Date:   Mon Aug 15 14:42:15 2016 -0500
>>>
>>>     net: Stop including NFS overhead in defragment max
>>>
>>
>> Uh oh, why is this aforementioned patch even correct ? And why don't we
>> just revert it ? And why didn't anyone notice any problems with it ?
> 
> Before that patch, on at least some platforms, lots of memory was
> being wasted just because of trying to single-source the size of NFS
> overhead. That patch removed that.
> 
> The comment from that patch: "If a board needs a specific different
> defragment size, that board can override this setting."
> 
> That is the case here.

Can we be sure that this patch will not break other board(s) ?

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut