[PATCH] net: eth-uclass: Fix message if mac is coming from DT or ROM

When local-mac-address DT property is specified it is reported the same way as address read from eeprom/ROM. Show properly if mac address is coming from DT or ROM.
Signed-off-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com ---
net/eth-uclass.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/eth-uclass.c b/net/eth-uclass.c index ed81cbd53746..5cb8f9aa270f 100644 --- a/net/eth-uclass.c +++ b/net/eth-uclass.c @@ -490,6 +490,7 @@ static int eth_post_probe(struct udevice *dev) struct eth_device_priv *priv = dev->uclass_priv; struct eth_pdata *pdata = dev->platdata; unsigned char env_enetaddr[ARP_HLEN]; + char *source = "DT";
#if defined(CONFIG_NEEDS_MANUAL_RELOC) struct eth_ops *ops = eth_get_ops(dev); @@ -522,6 +523,7 @@ static int eth_post_probe(struct udevice *dev) /* Check if the device has a valid MAC address in device tree */ if (!eth_dev_get_mac_address(dev, pdata->enetaddr) || !is_valid_ethaddr(pdata->enetaddr)) { + source = "ROM"; /* Check if the device has a MAC address in ROM */ if (eth_get_ops(dev)->read_rom_hwaddr) eth_get_ops(dev)->read_rom_hwaddr(dev); @@ -543,8 +545,8 @@ static int eth_post_probe(struct udevice *dev) memcpy(pdata->enetaddr, env_enetaddr, ARP_HLEN); } else if (is_valid_ethaddr(pdata->enetaddr)) { eth_env_set_enetaddr_by_index("eth", dev->seq, pdata->enetaddr); - printf("\nWarning: %s using MAC address from ROM\n", - dev->name); + printf("\nWarning: %s using MAC address from %s\n", + dev->name, source); } else if (is_zero_ethaddr(pdata->enetaddr) || !is_valid_ethaddr(pdata->enetaddr)) { #ifdef CONFIG_NET_RANDOM_ETHADDR

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:39:18AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
When local-mac-address DT property is specified it is reported the same way as address read from eeprom/ROM. Show properly if mac address is coming from DT or ROM.
Signed-off-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com
In looking over the queue of networking patches, I think I prefer http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20200611110321.9574-3-andre.... which just removes the message entirely and is consistent with the non-DM case.

Hi Tom,
On 12. 06. 20 17:00, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:39:18AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
When local-mac-address DT property is specified it is reported the same way as address read from eeprom/ROM. Show properly if mac address is coming from DT or ROM.
Signed-off-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com
In looking over the queue of networking patches, I think I prefer http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20200611110321.9574-3-andre.... which just removes the message entirely and is consistent with the non-DM case.
My patch is already in your tree. The patch you pointed me too is just removing one message.
Thanks, Michal

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:04:33AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
Hi Tom,
On 12. 06. 20 17:00, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:39:18AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
When local-mac-address DT property is specified it is reported the same way as address read from eeprom/ROM. Show properly if mac address is coming from DT or ROM.
Signed-off-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com
In looking over the queue of networking patches, I think I prefer http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20200611110321.9574-3-andre.... which just removes the message entirely and is consistent with the non-DM case.
My patch is already in your tree. The patch you pointed me too is just removing one message.
Sigh, the number of times the patchwork scripts don't match commits to patch ids is frustrating at times.
participants (2)
-
Michal Simek
-
Tom Rini