>>> It's PowerPC hardware which on barebox is not probed from devicetree, so >>> indeed there is no device node. >> >> But if no device tree, then >> alias = of_find_node_by_alias(of_get_root_node(), eth); >> should return NULL, and eth_is_stranger() should return false, thus >> making my patch no-op? > > Ok, you are right. I misread the code. You call of_find_node_by_alias() > on the internal device tree, not the one the Kernel is started with, so > indeed eth_is_stranger() should return false. > > Nevertheless I do not like this patch very much as it adds more code to > a place that is already hard to understand in all of its consequences. > > I would like to explore the route that we assign these dynamic devices > an id that is not present in any alias node. That could be done by > searching for the highest alias number and give the dynamic devices one > number higher. Would that be doable? Dynamic device number is assigned via - setting id to DEVICE_ID_DYNAMIC, either by driver or by code at top of eth_register(), - replacing that with lowest currently-unused number at top of register_device() Probably we can add one more magic value that driver could set into edev->dev.id before calling eth_register(), that will be replaced with lowest currently-unused number that does not have aliases. However, this will change eth numbering in existing setups and thus can break them. Possible option could be a flag in edev that forbids setting/exporting ethaddr for this device. Doing so for usbnet seems safe. This will fix my case. Nikita _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
