> Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:01:21AM CET,
ivecera@redhat.com wrote:
>> Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 06:11:21PM CET,
mschmidt@redhat.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:27:31 +0100
>>>> Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> + cpw32_f(MAC0 + 0, le32_to_cpu (*(__le32 *) (dev->dev_addr +
>>>>> 0)));
>>>>> + cpw32_f(MAC0 + 4, le32_to_cpu (*(__le32 *) (dev->dev_addr +
>>>>> 4)));
>>>> You're writing to the card, so using *_to_cpu looks suspicious.
>>> Well, I'm using the same approach as it is already done in function
>>> cp_init_hw(). Quote:
>>>
>>> /* Restore our idea of the MAC address. */
>>> cpw32_f (MAC0 + 0, le32_to_cpu (*(__le32 *) (dev->dev_addr + 0)));
>>> cpw32_f (MAC0 + 4, le32_to_cpu (*(__le32 *) (dev->dev_addr + 4)));
>>>
>> Yes, that's right but I would use more cleaner approach:
>> ===
>> u32 low, high;
>> low = addr[0] | (addr[1] << 8) | (addr[2] << 16) | (addr[3] << 24);
>> high = addr[4] | (addr[5] << 8);
>> cpw32_f(MAC0 + 0, low);
>> cpw32_f(MAC0 + 4, high);
>> ===
> Well, I have no problem with this (in fact I like this more). I just wanted to
> stay consistent to existing code. Maybe it would be good to change this chunk
> of code in cp_init_hw() too, don't you think?
