I was not in the mail list when Jason posted the patch, so I emulated the reply message.
diff --git a/drivers/net/fec_mxc.c b/drivers/net/fec_mxc.c index 3f09c2b..e8d7b98 100644 --- a/drivers/net/fec_mxc.c +++ b/drivers/net/fec_mxc.c @@ -312,21 +312,17 @@ static void fec_rbd_clean(int last, struct fec_bd *pRbd)
static int fec_get_hwaddr(struct eth_device *dev, unsigned char *mac) { -/*
- The MX27 can store the mac address in internal eeprom
- This mechanism is not supported now by MX51 or MX25
- */
-#if defined(CONFIG_MX51) || defined(CONFIG_MX25)
- return -1;
-#else
- /*
* The MX27 can store the mac address in internal eeprom* This mechanism is also supported now by MX51 or MX25*/
The comment was added to distinguish the MX27 support from MX51/25 on mac fuse. Since the support becomes common, can we just simply remove the comment? Also, the mac is implemented in fuse like the message title tells than "eeprom".
struct iim_regs *iim = (struct iim_regs *)IMX_IIM_BASE; int i;
for (i = 0; i < 6; i++)
mac[6-1-i] = readl(&iim->iim_bank_area0[IIM0_MAC + i]);
mac[6-1-i] = readl(&iim->iim_bank_area[IIM_MAC + i]);
There is a bug. The fix could be as below (tested on mx51evk).
- mac[6-1-i] = readl(&iim->iim_bank_area0[IIM0_MAC + i]); + mac[i] = readl(&iim->iim_bank_area[IIM_MAC + i]);
return !is_valid_ether_addr(mac); -#endif }