Hello.

Florian Fainelli wrote:

quoted text
>>>>>This patch adds the board code to register a per-board au1000-eth
>>>>>platform device to be used wit the au1000-eth platform driver in a
>>>>>subsequent patch. Note that the au1000-eth driver knows about the
>>>>>default driver settings such that we do not need to pass any
>>>>>platform_data informations in most cases except db1x00.

quoted text
>>>>   Sigh, NAK...
>>>>   Please don't register the SoC device per board, do it in
>>>>alchemy/common/platfrom.c and find a way to pass the board specific
>>>>platform data from the board file there instead -- something like
>>>>arch/arm/mach-davinci/usb.c does.

quoted text
>>>Ok, like I promised, this was the per-board device registration. Do you
>>>prefer something like this:

quoted text
>>    I certainly do, but still not in this incarnation... :-)

quoted text
>>>+static struct au1000_eth_platform_data au1xxx_eth0_platform_data = {
>>>+	.phy1_search_mac0 = 1,
>>>+};

quoted text
>>    I'm not sure that the default platfrom data is really a great idea...

quoted text
> Can you elaborate a bit more ? We actually need to make the Ethernet MAC driver aware of some PHY settings.

    But why do you have the platform data in *this* file, no the board files?

quoted text
>>>+#ifndef CONFIG_SOC_AU1100
>>>+static struct platform_device au1xxx_eth1_device = {
>>>+	.name		= "au1000-eth",
>>>+	.id		= 1,
>>>+	.num_resources	= ARRAY_SIZE(au1xxx_eth1_resources),
>>>+	.resource	= au1xxx_eth1_resources,

quoted text
>>    And where's the platfrom data for the second Ethernet?

quoted text
> There is no need to, as the driver originally did not override any specific settings on the second MAC (afair).

    Specific settings where, in the driver? Shouldn't all such settings be 
bound to the platform data instead?

quoted text
>>>+};
>>>+#endif
>>>+
>>>+void __init au1xxx_override_eth0_cfg(struct au1000_eth_platform_data
>>>*eth_data) +{
>>>+	if (!eth_data)
>>>+		return;
>>>+
>>>+	memcpy(&au1xxx_eth0_platform_data, eth_data,
>>>+		sizeof(struct au1000_eth_platform_data));

quoted text
>>    Why not just set the pointer in au1xxx_eth0_device. And really, why not
>>make the function more generic, with a prototype like:

quoted text
> For the same reasons as explained below, MAC1 did not need any specific change.

    So, the driver can get away without platform data? What does it do in 
this case -- I haven't looked at that patch?

quoted text
>>void __init au1xxx_override_eth_cfg(unsigned port, struct
>>				    au1000_eth_platform_data *eth_data);

quoted text
>>>+}
>>>+
>>> static struct platform_device *au1xxx_platform_devices[] __initdata = {
>>> 	&au1xx0_uart_device,
>>> 	&au1xxx_usb_ohci_device,
>>>@@ -351,17 +422,25 @@ static struct platform_device
>>>*au1xxx_platform_devices[] __initdata = { #ifdef SMBUS_PSC_BASE
>>> 	&pbdb_smbus_device,
>>> #endif
>>>+	&au1xxx_eth0_device,
>>> };
>>>
>>> static int __init au1xxx_platform_init(void)
>>> {
>>> 	unsigned int uartclk = get_au1x00_uart_baud_base() * 16;
>>>-	int i;
>>>+	int i, ni;
>>>
>>> 	/* Fill up uartclk. */
>>> 	for (i = 0; au1x00_uart_data[i].flags; i++)
>>> 		au1x00_uart_data[i].uartclk = uartclk;
>>>
>>>+	/* Register second MAC if enabled in pinfunc */
>>>+#ifndef CONFIG_SOC_AU1100
>>>+	ni = (int)((au_readl(SYS_PINFUNC) & (u32)(SYS_PF_NI2)) >> 4);
>>>+	if (!(ni + 1))

quoted text
>>    Why so complex, and how can (ni + 1) ever be 0?! :-/

quoted text
> This is left-over debugging stub, I will rework it. About complexity, this line is taken directly from the au1000_eth driver.

    I don't see !(ni + 1) there, only:

	num_ifs = NUM_ETH_INTERFACES - ni;

which is correct, unlike what you've written.

WBR, Sergei

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html