Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> 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.
It is (was) - CFG_MAX_NUM_ETH:
+ for (i = 0; i < CFG_MAX_NUM_ETH; i++) {
Actually, I don't see any arbitrary upper limit in the code, including
Kumar's value of 10 (well, until you overflow the strings, anyway, but
that is 100 interfaces).
>>> 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.
CFG_MAX_NUM_ETH would presumably be the physical max and the
/aliases/ethernet (and associated env variables) should *not* be sparse,
therefore I agree with the the "break" recommendation.
>>> 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?
I originally wrote to support sparse ethernet MAC addresses, but on
reflection I don't think that is an issue because we will have
/aliases/ethernet[0-9]+ which won't be sparse, even if the actual SOC
(e.g. PowerQuicc) channels that are used for ethernet are used in a
sparse manner.
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
Best regards,
gvb
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
