EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs

Tom Rini trini at kernel.crashing.org
Thu Mar 21 03:19:31 EST 2002

On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 07:30:38AM -0800, Michael Sokolov wrote:
> benh at kernel.crashing.org wrote:
> > This is the wrong approach. What we should do instead is have the gt eth
> > driver
> > do some kind of find_bi_rec(BI_GT64260_ETH_CFG). setup.c doesn't have to be
> > changed each time a new birec is added, and your approach seem wrong if
> > that driver ever becomes a module.
> Then push my patch defining the new bi_recs, and once it's in I'll make another
> one to implement what you just suggested. But if patches aren't being accepted
> there is no incentive for me to make or improve them.

Sure there is, for it to be accepted.  And would you please make it
versus the _galileo tree so that other users of GT-64260 can easily test
your changes?

Tom Rini (TR1265)

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list