Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs

On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 07:30:38AM -0800, Michael Sokolov wrote:

benh@kernel.crashing.org wrote:

quoted

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)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

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