[PATCH 03/10] net/fec: add mac field into platform data and consolidate fec_get_mac

[Shawn Guo]

Hi Uwe,

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 11:37:58AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 06:30:15PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > Sorry, Baruch.  I missed two comments in the last reply.
> > 
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 08:53:30AM +0200, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > > Hi Shawn,
> > > 
> > > Please add netdev at vger.kernel.org to the Cc of all your fec driver patches.
> > > 
> > I was aware of this after I sent out the patch set last night.
> > Can I just resend all the patches in v2 and get netdev at vger.kernel.org
> > included?
> [I just added netdev for this reply.  I think adding it for v2 is OK
> then.  For those interested, the whole series can be found at
> 
> 	http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/100902
> 
> .]
>  
Thanks.

> > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:55:48PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * try to get mac address in following order:
> > > > +	 *
> > > > +	 * 1) kernel command line fec_mac=xx:xx:xx...
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	iap = fec_mac_default;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * 2) from flash or fuse (via platform data)
> > > > +	 */
> > > 
> > > Again, how do you handle the dual MAC case?
> > > 
> > For the platform data case, the following patch reads both mac
> > addresses.
> > 
> > [PATCH 09/10] ARM: mx28: read fec mac address from ocotp
> > 
> > +static int __init mx28evk_fec_get_mac(void)
> > +{
> > +       int i, ret;
> > +       u32 val;
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * OCOTP only stores the last 4 octets for each mac address,
> > +        * so hard-coding the first two octets as Freescale OUI (00:04:9f)
> > +        * is needed.
> > +        */
> > +       for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
> > +               ret = mxs_read_ocotp(0x20 + i * 0x10, 1, &val);
> > +               if (ret)
> > +                       goto error;
> > +
> > +               mx28_fec_pdata[i].mac[0] = 0x00;
> > +               mx28_fec_pdata[i].mac[1] = 0x04;
> > +               mx28_fec_pdata[i].mac[2] = (val >> 24) & 0xff;
> > +               mx28_fec_pdata[i].mac[3] = (val >> 16) & 0xff;
> > +               mx28_fec_pdata[i].mac[4] = (val >> 8) & 0xff;
> > +               mx28_fec_pdata[i].mac[5] = (val >> 0) & 0xff;
> uuh.  Is ((val >> 24) & 0xff) supposed to be 0x9f?  If not this might
> have unwanted effects (practical, don't know about legal ones).
Yes, it is 0x9f.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn