On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Simon Glass,
In message 1302748176-4324-2-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org you wrote:
@@ -88,9 +89,10 @@ static void probe_valid_drivers(struct usb_device *dev) /* * ok, it is a supported eth device. Get info and fill it in */
- eth = &usb_eth[usb_max_eth_dev].eth_dev;
Index for eth is usb_max_eth_dev.
@@ -100,7 +102,10 @@ static void probe_valid_drivers(struct usb_device *dev) * call since eth_current_changed (internally called) * relies on it */
- eth_register(&usb_eth[usb_max_eth_dev - 1].eth_dev);
- eth_register(eth);
You change the behaviour here. Please confirmt his is really intentional.
Yes. Since I am using an 'eth' pointer I don't need to index the array again. The behaviour is the same as before.
diff --git a/include/net.h b/include/net.h
@@ -123,7 +123,18 @@ extern int eth_get_dev_index (void); /* get the device index */
+/*
- Get the hardware address for an ethernet interface .
- Args:
- base_name - base name for device (NULL for "eth")
This is an atitifical decision for the API which is difficult to understand. It just makes the code and understanding it more difficult. Just pass "eth" when you mean it.
The intention was to avoid everyone having to pass the correct value - potential for error, etc. I could have created a #define, but decided on this.
I have changed it as you request.
+int eth_write_hwaddr(struct eth_device *dev, const char *base_name,
- int eth_number)
+{
- unsigned char env_enetaddr[6];
- int ret = 0;
- eth_getenv_enetaddr_by_index(base_name, eth_number, env_enetaddr);
Add error handling, or write
(void)eth_getenv_enetaddr_by_index(...);
to indicate that you intentionally ignore the return value.
Done
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Regards, Simon