Dear Kumar Gala, In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > >> This makes the code a bit more flexible to the number of ethernet > >> interfaces. Right now we assume a max of 10 interfaces. > > > > Hm... where exactly is this artificial limit coming from? Do we really > > need it? > > We need some upper limit to stop checking at.
The upper limit should be the real (configured) number of network interfaces, not some artificial limit which is either too high or too low. > > If we assume, that all existing interfaces must have addresses > > assigned, we could use a "break" here instead of the "continue". That > > would be (1) much faster on most boards and (2) would allow us to get > > rid of the artifical limit of 10. > > > > What do you think? > > I dont like making this assumption and do think its too much work to > check 10 possible aliases and skip to the next one if it doesn't exist. I do not want to see any such hard-coded limits if they can be avoided. Which problem do you see to stop here at the first interface that has no MAC address assigned to it? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "To IBM, 'open' means there is a modicum of interoperability among some of their equipment." - Harv Masterson _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
