Stefan Roese wrote:
On Tuesday 10 June 2008, Shinya Kuribayashi wrote:
Shouldn't this be the other way around?
if (board_eth_init(bis) < 0)eth_eth_init(bis);So that the board init routine can "overwrite" the cpu init version.
Yeah, I think you're right. If board_eth_init() exists, it gets highest priority.
Just wondered, does that mean we could only have either cpu_eth_init or board_eth_init at a time?
Not really. board_eth_init() could call cpu_eth_init() if necessary.
Hm. What is cpu_eth_init for then? Just
board_eth_init(bis);
seems to be enough for me. I also wonder where is the best place to have cpu_eth_init?
I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just thinking about my targets. One of my targets has internal ethernet MAC, and its evaluation board has an on-board external PCI NIC. Another target has internal MAC, but doesn't have PCI NIC.
I thought it'll be something like
cpu_eth_init(bis); board_eth_init(bis);
But again, I don't have strong opinions around here. Please go ahead.
Thanks for your comments,
Shinya