[Re-adding mailing list to Cc] "Frank van der Schoot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well after some more investigation: the macb-driver is creating an > eth_device-structure and this structure is initialised in > macb_eth_initialize() and then registered with eth_register(). So this > gives it some abstraction. Dm9000 driver doesn't have this. It has > eth_init() (To my opinionL it collides with eth_init() of eth.c), > eth_send() and doesn't register itself with eth_register(). Question: > Should all ethernet devices register itself via eth_register() (and the > dm9000-driver is not updated yet for this method)?
Right...it looks like the dm9000 driver uses some sort of pre-net/eth.c interface which doesn't play well along with other drivers... > Via hacking I can of course rename the eth_init() of dm9000x.c to > dm9000_eth_init() and call it from eth_initialize(). But first I like to > try it via a decent construction and maybe I should update the > dm9000-driver for working with eth_register(). That would be great. > By the way I'm working with Uboot 1.3.3 on which I cannot find > board_eth_init() but here eth_initialize() does the initialisation of > macb_eth_initialize(). I did have a short peek to the trunk but it looks > like the dm9000-driver hasn't changed there. I think 1.3.4 should have the board_eth_init() stuff in place. Ben's latest eth-initialization patches are probably worth a look too: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2008-September/039792.html ...though it looks like dm9000 is one of the "more complicated ones". Haavard _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
