Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:11:18 +0700 From: Yohanes Nugroho <yohanes@gmail.com> To: ticso@cicely.de Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: at91sam9g20: Upcoming Patches Message-ID: <AANLkTilj6crfPkCfViYU8LkFxZ6LY8WxRAghiZXaSDn_@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100719153614.GI28908@cicely7.cicely.de> References: <4C444E8B.6090104@ansley.com> <20100719153614.GI28908@cicely7.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely7.cicely.de> wr= ote: >> if_ate.c: >> >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Support for sam9 "EMAC" controller. >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Support for rmii interface to phy. > > RM9200 ate requires specific DMA alignment, which required a few > realign copys. > This isn't neccessary for most other AT91 devices and for sure > not with any AT91SAM9x device. > Not sure if all of them are automatically avoided - you might want > to verify the code about this point. > There is also RBNA workaround, which should be RM9200 specifc, > which shouldn't be triggered with others, but you might want to save > a few bytes codespace. And looking at Linux's code, they separate for the RM9200 driver and newer AT9 (macb) drivers. I haven't looked deeply, but it seems that if we are going to support all variations of RM9200 PHY for link checking purpose, there will a lot of RM9200 specific code. I agree that there are many things in common between these two drivers, but I don't know if it is a good idea to keep everything in one file. --=20 Regards Yohanes http://yohan.es/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTilj6crfPkCfViYU8LkFxZ6LY8WxRAghiZXaSDn_>