On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > > Dear Simon Glass, > > > > In message <banlktikgucjpun2rhs2t2nyq4_kb9gk...@mail.gmail.com> you > wrote: > >> > >> >> + eth = &usb_eth[usb_max_eth_dev].eth_dev; > >> > > >> > Index for eth is usb_max_eth_dev. > >> > > >> >> @@ -100,7 +102,10 @@ static void probe_valid_drivers(struct > usb_device *> dev) > >> >> * call since eth_current_> changed (internally > called) > >> >> * relies on it > >> >> */ > >> >> - eth_register(&usb_eth[usb_max_eth_dev - > 1].eth_dev); > >> >> + eth_register(eth); > >> > > >> > You change the behaviour here. Please confirmt his is really > >> > intentional. > >> > >> Yes. Since I am using an 'eth' pointer I don't need to index the array > >> again. The behaviour is the same as before. > > > > No, it is not. Before, we were accessing entry N-1 here. Now we use > > entry N. usb_max_eth_dev != usb_max_eth_dev - 1 > > Hi Wolfgang, > > Hmmm. If you see the usb_max_eth_dev++ below, it is increasing the > index variable to keep eth_register() happy. I have kept that > behaviour. > > So let's say usb_max_eth_dev is 3. The sequence is: > > - set eth to point to item 3 > - increase usb_max_eth_dev to 4 as required by eth_register() > - call eth_register() with item 3 (i.e. eth pointer hasn't changed) > - call eth_write_hwaddr with item 3 > > Maybe look at the whole code with my patch applied? > > Let me know if I am missing something. > > Hi Wolfgang, Please can you let me know where we stand with this patch? It is a bit opaque and if you don't mind me reaching a bit further I might be able to clean it up by changing eth_register(). Thanks, Simon
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
