[PATCH] board: dhelectronics: imx: Use second Ethernet MAC also from fuse

[Marek Vasut]

On 3/23/26 5:49 PM, Christoph Niedermaier wrote:

[...]

>> As for the rest, it really boils down to the ordering of fallbacks, it
>> is either:
>>
>> A)
>> fuse1
>> eeprom1
>> fuse0+1
>> eeprom0+1
>>
>> or
>>
>> B)
>> fuse1
>> fuse0+1
>> eeprom1
>> eeprom0+1
>>
>> The following ordering, which is the ordering introduced by this patch,
>> is confusing:
>>
>> fuse1
>> eeprom1
>> eeprom0+1
>> fuse0+1
>>
>> So please pick either A) or B) above. I do not see any particular
>> advantage of either of the other, except maybe B) improves boot time in
>> case both fuse blocks are blown, because it avoids the EEPROM I2C access.
> 
> The prevention of I2C access is only a one time effect, because then the
> MAC addresses will provided by the environment.

Which increases the system boot time, which is undesired.

> If I remove the eeprom0+1, because it was for prototype configurations,
> my preferred order would be:
> 
> fuse1
> eeprom1
> fuse0+1
eeprom0 can not be removed, that breaks backward compatibility. And the 
ordering of fuse-eeprom-fuse is confusing and has the boot time increase 
downside of A).

I would say B) is the way to go, it should also cover your requirements, 
keeps the boot time low if both fuse banks are fused (which can be fixed 
even on existing hardware, simply read out eeprom content and fuse it 
into fuse bank 1), and it retains the priority ordering (env, fuse, 
eeprom) without mixing it up.