26.06.2018 10:05, Nikita Yushchenko wrote: >>>> 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. Thinking more on this, maybe cleaner is NOT to match by id of in-barebox ethdevice when setting/exporting ethaddr by default, but explicitly allow such matching for platforms that need it. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
