Mike Rapoport wrote:
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 46B9563B.1010807@compulab.co.il you wrote:
Could this ever be other than the first Ethernet controller on a board? If so, 'ethaddr' won't cut it.
If a board has more than one DM9000, the driver in its current state does not support it anyway.
Assume the board has an XXX Ethernet controller as eth0, and a DM9000 as eth1 ?
The only solution I can think of in this case is adding some #define CONFIG_DM9000_ETHER_INDEX in the board config and approptiate '#if' clauses in the driver. If it's Ok with you I'll do it and resend the patch. Still, the configuration you mention seems very theoretical for me and I can hardly imagine someone designing a board with such configuration.
This may not be necessary, since this controller isn't CONFIG_NET_MULTI compatible, although it should be. Yeah, I know you pointed this out already. Sorry...
This type of configuration is not at all theoretical. While it's hardly a shining example of hardware design, we have a board that uses both TSECs on an MPC8349 for high speed traffic, but we needed another 10/100 interface for control purposes. We put a cheap MAC/PHY chip on the local bus to meet this need. It wasn't a DM9000, but it could have been.
regards, Ben