David Gibson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:13:05AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
quoted
Well, no. Even on a given board, it depends on the version of u-boot.
There's nothing after enet1addr that the bootwrapper cares about,
though, so the only harm is if the device tree has a second network
interface but u-boot doesn't know about it, and the bootwrapper ends up
pulling in junk rather than leaving zeroes.
That sounds like a terribly fragile way of handling things.
Yes, but that's inherent in the way the bd_t is defined. The robust way
is to get device tree support into u-boot.
-Scott