On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Andy Fleming wrote:
I thought about this some more, and the problem is that cpu_eth_init() and board_eth_init() are mutually exclusive, with board_eth_init() having a higher priority. I think the following will work, but would appreciate some feedback.
I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. Imagine, for instance, an 85xx board that (for some reason) has on-board ethernet. I believe some of the DS systems do this. So the 85xx has 4 nics which the SOC knows how to initialize. But the board has an additional driver to init. Why not just allow them both?
Image a board that doesn't want all CPU (SoC) interfaces to get initialized. If for such a board a cpu-specific init routine exists, there is no chance to not enable (init) all those cpu interfaces as done in cpu_eth_init().
With this approach of mutually exclusive routines, it could define it's board_eth_init() and init only the Soc interfaces really needed. Plus additional ones of course.
Does this make sense?
Best regards, Stefan
===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: office@denx.de =====================================================================