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 }