Hi Ilya,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Ilya Yanok <ya...@emcraft.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok <ya...@emcraft.com>
> ---
> cpu/arm926ejs/mx27/generic.c | 10 +
> drivers/net/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/net/fec_mxc.c | 742
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/net/fec_mxc.h | 304 +++++++++++++++++
> include/netdev.h | 1 +
> 5 files changed, 1058 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 drivers/net/fec_mxc.c
> create mode 100644 drivers/net/fec_mxc.h
>
> diff --git a/cpu/arm926ejs/mx27/generic.c b/cpu/arm926ejs/mx27/generic.c
> index bcf7899..7f6fc69 100644
> --- a/cpu/arm926ejs/mx27/generic.c
> +++ b/cpu/arm926ejs/mx27/generic.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>
> #include <common.h>
> #include <div64.h>
> +#include <netdev.h>
> #include <asm/io.h>
> #include <asm/arch/imx-regs.h>
>
> @@ -159,6 +160,15 @@ int print_cpuinfo (void)
> }
> #endif
>
> +int cpu_eth_init(bd_t *bis)
> +{
> +#if defined(CONFIG_FEC_IMX27)
> + return fecimx27_initialize(bis);
> +#else
> + return 0;
> +#endif
> +}
> +
The main reason why this was rejected previously was because you needlessly
restricted the scope to imx27, when there are other CPUs that apparently
share this FEC. I see you've changed the name of the driver to something
more appropriately generic, but why not the name of the initialization
function?
Please rationalize this. If you do so, I'll make sure to get the driver in
this release.
regards,
Ben
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
