On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Simon Glass,
In message BANLkTikGucjpun2RhS2T2Nyq4_KB9gK8zw@mail.gmail.com you
wrote:
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 (internallycalled)
* 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.
No, it is not. Before, we were accessing entry N-1 here. Now we use entry N. usb_max_eth_dev != usb_max_eth_dev - 1
Hi Wolfgang,
Hmmm. If you see the usb_max_eth_dev++ below, it is increasing the index variable to keep eth_register() happy. I have kept that behaviour.
So let's say usb_max_eth_dev is 3. The sequence is:
- set eth to point to item 3
- increase usb_max_eth_dev to 4 as required by eth_register()
- call eth_register() with item 3 (i.e. eth pointer hasn't changed)
- call eth_write_hwaddr with item 3
Maybe look at the whole code with my patch applied?
Let me know if I am missing something.
Hi Wolfgang,
Please can you let me know where we stand with this patch? It is a bit opaque and if you don't mind me reaching a bit further I might be able to clean it up by changing eth_register().
Thanks, Simon