On 03/18/2011 08:25 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On Friday 18 March 2011, Andy Green wrote:
On 03/17/2011 11:27 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
The patch below also looks right to me. I believe it also has the
advantage of u-boot already knowing how to update the
local-mac-address property at boot time.
In my (tested, working, complete) patch series, I allow platform_data
based override of MAC at usbnet level, so all the drivers can benefit
from it.
Is this not a case of "small thinking" from a Device Tree perspective
that Arnd's patch only targets smsc95xx? Or did I miss some
disadvantage to allowing this functional configuration option at usbnet
layer?
I think either way works (usb-net or individual drivers), the difference is
which information you use when both a hardware MAC address and the
local-mac-address property are used. Your patch uses the local-mac-address,
mine would use the hardware mac address and only fall back to the
property if there is no other one.
I still need to look at your patch series, I didn't realize you had
already sent it.
Yeah I sent it last Saturday. Whether the MAC override from
platform_data has precedence over EEPROM info is a matter of taste, in
this set it overrides even EEPROM. Note the smsc95xx patch crept into
the Panda-specific set.
Platform series: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129996915023642&w=2
USB Host + Usbnet series:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129996966324111&w=2
Panda-specific: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129997032724779&w=2
-Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
