| Message ID | 1301433395-25203-1-git-send-email-gryrmln@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | Albert ARIBAUD |
| Headers | show |
Dear Gray Remlin, In message <1301433395-25203-1-git-send-email-gryrmln@gmail.com> you wrote: > Signed-off-by: Gray Remlin <gryrmln@gmail.com> > --- > common/cmd_bdinfo.c | 3 +++ > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) Why limit this to eth1addr? What's the chances that ARM systems may have more than 2 network interfaces? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk
On 03/29/2011 10:49 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Gray Remlin, > > In message<1301433395-25203-1-git-send-email-gryrmln@gmail.com> you wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Gray Remlin<gryrmln@gmail.com> >> --- >> common/cmd_bdinfo.c | 3 +++ >> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > Why limit this to eth1addr? What's the chances that ARM systems may > have more than 2 network interfaces? > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk > Good question, I have already asked myself this, so I have stuck with what I do know. 1. It has had the one ethaddr limit for a (relatively) long time, which it seems no-one else 'required'\'submitted a patch' to change it. 2. I only know (with my very limited knowledge) of ARM boards with a maximum of two interfaces as standard. 3. Why limit it to six (as in other parts of the source) ? My answer: It is not my place to dictate policy, that is the role of the Project Manager. And no, that is not a 'cop-out', it is the only way to avoid anarchy.
Le 30/03/2011 00:36, Gray Remlin a écrit : > On 03/29/2011 10:49 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear Gray Remlin, >> >> In message<1301433395-25203-1-git-send-email-gryrmln@gmail.com> you wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Gray Remlin<gryrmln@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> common/cmd_bdinfo.c | 3 +++ >>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> Why limit this to eth1addr? What's the chances that ARM systems may >> have more than 2 network interfaces? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Wolfgang Denk >> > Good question, I have already asked myself this, so I have stuck with > what I do know. > > 1. It has had the one ethaddr limit for a (relatively) long time, which > it seems no-one else 'required'\'submitted a patch' to change it. > 2. I only know (with my very limited knowledge) of ARM boards with a > maximum of two interfaces as standard. > 3. Why limit it to six (as in other parts of the source) ? > > My answer: > It is not my place to dictate policy, that is the role of the Project > Manager. > And no, that is not a 'cop-out', it is the only way to avoid anarchy. There is no ARM board right now which defined CONFIG_HAS_ETH2 or higher, and I have seen no ARM code which assumes otherwise (readers feel free to prove me wrong, of course). Besides, while contributors are always welcome to generalize their patches beyond their needs if they so accept, by no means are they forced to do so against their will when their contribution is consistent with the existing code state. I thus consider Gray's patch is OK and, unless some review is requested in the near future, will pull it in u-boot-arm (*not* for inclusion in 2011-03, of course). If someone wants support for CONFIG_HAS_ETH2 or higher on ARM, they are welcome to extend Gray's work, even to merge some ARM and PPC parts of common/cmd_bd_info.c. Amicalement,
Hi Gray, > On 03/29/2011 10:49 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear Gray Remlin, >> >> In message<1301433395-25203-1-git-send-email-gryrmln@gmail.com> you wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Gray Remlin<gryrmln@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> common/cmd_bdinfo.c | 3 +++ >>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> Why limit this to eth1addr? What's the chances that ARM systems may >> have more than 2 network interfaces? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Wolfgang Denk >> > Good question, I have already asked myself this, so I have stuck with > what I do know. > > 1. It has had the one ethaddr limit for a (relatively) long time, which > it seems no-one else 'required'\'submitted a patch' to change it. > 2. I only know (with my very limited knowledge) of ARM boards with a > maximum of two interfaces as standard. > 3. Why limit it to six (as in other parts of the source) ? Because todays CPUs get drowned with six saturated links? ;) > My answer: > It is not my place to dictate policy, that is the role of the Project > Manager. > And no, that is not a 'cop-out', it is the only way to avoid anarchy. If we extend something, it is a good idea to sync to other places in the sources. Cheers Detlev
On 03/30/2011 12:34 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Le 30/03/2011 00:36, Gray Remlin a écrit : >> On 03/29/2011 10:49 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>> Dear Gray Remlin, >>> >>> In message<1301433395-25203-1-git-send-email-gryrmln@gmail.com> you wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Gray Remlin<gryrmln@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> common/cmd_bdinfo.c | 3 +++ >>>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> Why limit this to eth1addr? What's the chances that ARM systems may >>> have more than 2 network interfaces? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Wolfgang Denk >>> >> Good question, I have already asked myself this, so I have stuck with >> what I do know. >> >> 1. It has had the one ethaddr limit for a (relatively) long time, which >> it seems no-one else 'required'\'submitted a patch' to change it. >> 2. I only know (with my very limited knowledge) of ARM boards with a >> maximum of two interfaces as standard. >> 3. Why limit it to six (as in other parts of the source) ? >> >> My answer: >> It is not my place to dictate policy, that is the role of the Project >> Manager. >> And no, that is not a 'cop-out', it is the only way to avoid anarchy. > There is no ARM board right now which defined CONFIG_HAS_ETH2 or higher, > and I have seen no ARM code which assumes otherwise (readers feel free > to prove me wrong, of course). > > Besides, while contributors are always welcome to generalize their > patches beyond their needs if they so accept, by no means are they > forced to do so against their will when their contribution is consistent > with the existing code state. > > I thus consider Gray's patch is OK and, unless some review is requested > in the near future, will pull it in u-boot-arm (*not* for inclusion in > 2011-03, of course). > > If someone wants support for CONFIG_HAS_ETH2 or higher on ARM, they are > welcome to extend Gray's work, even to merge some ARM and PPC parts of > common/cmd_bd_info.c. > > Amicalement, I hold regard for 'small is beautiful' and want to see u-boot both 'complete' and 'concise', sometimes a difficult juggling act. There are two different variants of the same ARM board that I am working with, the variant I have has two ethernet ports, the other only one. I am considering releasing a patch for the configuration header file with the differences commented to make it obvious, until u-boot supports this, there is no point in submitting the patch other than to confuse people. There is a new recently released ARM board that also has two ethernet ports, but as this differs in memory configuration, will not likely share the same configuration header, but will still require support. These three ARM boards are all Kirkwood family. If they release another with more ports, I will most likely submit the patch myself (providing I can test it first of course, any freebies Globalscale ?).
diff --git a/common/cmd_bdinfo.c b/common/cmd_bdinfo.c index bba7374..c0553d5 100644 --- a/common/cmd_bdinfo.c +++ b/common/cmd_bdinfo.c @@ -340,6 +340,9 @@ int do_bdinfo ( cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[]) #if defined(CONFIG_CMD_NET) print_eth(0); +#if defined(CONFIG_HAS_ETH1) + print_eth(1); +#endif printf ("ip_addr = %pI4\n", &bd->bi_ip_addr); #endif printf ("baudrate = %d bps\n", bd->bi_baudrate);
Signed-off-by: Gray Remlin <gryrmln@gmail.com> --- common/cmd_bdinfo.c | 3 +++ 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)