Jiri Pirko wrote:Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:01:21AM CET, ivecera@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:Yes, you're right.Jiri Pirko wrote:Well, I have no problem with this (in fact I like this more). I just wanted toThu, Mar 12, 2009 at 06:11:21PM CET, mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:Yes, that's right but I would use more cleaner approach:On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:27:31 +0100Well, I'm using the same approach as it is already done in function
Jiri Pirko <jpirko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+ cpw32_f(MAC0 + 0, le32_to_cpu (*(__le32 *) (dev->dev_addr +You're writing to the card, so using *_to_cpu looks suspicious.
0)));
+ cpw32_f(MAC0 + 4, le32_to_cpu (*(__le32 *) (dev->dev_addr +
4)));
cp_init_hw(). Quote:
/* Restore our idea of the MAC address. */
cpw32_f (MAC0 + 0, le32_to_cpu (*(__le32 *) (dev->dev_addr + 0)));
cpw32_f (MAC0 + 4, le32_to_cpu (*(__le32 *) (dev->dev_addr + 4)));
===
u32 low, high;
low = addr[0] | (addr[1] << 8) | (addr[2] << 16) | (addr[3] << 24);
high = addr[4] | (addr[5] << 8);
cpw32_f(MAC0 + 0, low);
cpw32_f(MAC0 + 4, high);
===
stay consistent to existing code. Maybe it would be good to change this chunk
of code in cp_init_hw() too, don't you think?