On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 08:42:37AM +0300, Nikita Yushchenko wrote: > > > 25.06.2018 15:34, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > Hi Nikita, > > > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 07:30:12PM +0300, Nikita Yushchenko wrote: > >> It can happen that device tree contains ethernetN alias pointing to > >> valid device, but that device is not supported by [running instance of] > >> barebox. Then ethN remains unassigned, and can be later captured by > >> dynamically registered device such as usbnet. > >> > >> For such "stranger" device, ethaddr preconfigured for ethN should not be > >> assigned. Also, ethaddr of such device should not be written to > >> ethernetN node of device tree passed to kernel being booted. > >> > > > > There's only one usecase for matching edev->dev.id against the ethernetx > > alias which has been introduced with: > > > > | commit a78431c7fc42193be252417bf06f7cc61765a51e > > | Author: Renaud Barbier <renaud.barbier@xxxxxx> > > | Date: Wed Sep 4 08:37:03 2013 +0200 > > | > > | net, of: fixup MAC address by alias > > | > > | If a network device has not been registered from the devicetree, we may > > | still find it by its alias in the devicetree. This way also platform based > > | network devices can obtain a valid MAC address in the devicetree. > > | > > | Signed-off-by: Renaud Barbier <renaud.barbier@xxxxxx> > > | Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Your eth_is_stranger() returns true for the devices that Renaud wanted > > to support, so instead of applying your patch we could equally well > > revert that from Renaud. > > > > I don't have a good idea right now how to fix this. Maybe we have to > > make sure that ethernet devices from dynamic buses never get an id > > asigned that is also present in the aliases node. > > eth_is_stranger() for ethN returns true only if ethernetN alias exists > AND ethN either does not have device tree node, or has node different > from what is pointed by alias. > > My assumption was that if under linux ethdevice is configured via device > tree node with ethernetX alias, then under barebox it should also be > configured via device tree node with same alias. > > You mean, there is hardware that breaks this assumption? > Which hardware it is? It's PowerPC hardware which on barebox is not probed from devicetree, so indeed there is no device node. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
