AT91/AVR32: at91_emac.c VS macb.c in drivers/net
Hallo,
macb.c is known to work for AT91 and AVR32.
Why was at91_emac.c introduced into mainstream?
By name it suggests it is designed to work with AT91 (only)?
I don't think it is desireable to have to drivers doing the same task.
Unless someone has a good point why we need at91_emac.c I propose to remove it from mainstream.
Best Regards,
Reinhard
Hi Reinhard
Quoted 4 lines · Reinhard Meyer
Hallo,
macb.cis known to work for AT91 and AVR32.
Quoted 9 lines
Why was
at91_emac.cintroduced into mainstream?By name it suggests it is designed to work with AT91 (only)?
I don't think it is desireable to have to drivers doing the same task.
Unless someone has a good point why we need
at91_emac.cI propose to remove it from mainstream.
If they really are for the same hardware block, then I agree. For this, though, you'll need to get many testers and 'Acked-by's.
Quoted 3 lines
Best Regards,
Reinhard
Regards,
Ben
Quoted 5 lines
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot at lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot