Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> * Jeroen Hofstee <jhofstee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [161028 11:19]:
>> Hello Tony,
>>
>> On 28-10-16 17:52, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> > * Jeroen Hofstee <jhofstee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [161028 08:33]:
>> > > Commit b6745f6e4e63 ("drivers: net: cpsw: davinci_emac: move reading mac
>> > > id to common file") did not only move the code for an am3517, it also
>> > > added the slave parameter, resulting in an invalid (all zero) mac address
>> > > being returned for an am3517, since it only has a single emac and the slave
>> > > parameter is pointing to the second. So simply always read the first and
>> > > valid mac-address for a ti,am3517-emac.
>> > And others davinci_emac.c users can have more than one. So is the
>> > reason the slave parameter points to the second instance because
>> > of the location in the hardware?
>>
>> Sort of, the slave parameter gets determined by the fact if there is one
>> or two register range(s) associated with the davinci_emac. In davinci_emac.c
>>
>> res_ctrl = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 1);
>> ...
>> rc = davinci_emac_try_get_mac(pdev, res_ctrl ? 0 : 1,
>> priv->mac_addr);
>>
>> So it there are two ranges, the slave param becomes 0. It there is only one,
>> it
>> will be 1. Since the am3517 only has a single regs entry it ends up with
>> slave 1,
>> while there is only a single davinci_emac.
>
> OK thanks for clarifying it:
>
> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Is there some reason this patch was never picked up, or was it simply
forgotten?
--
Måns Rullgård
