Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 23:47:37 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Stefan Bethke <stb@lassitu.de> Cc: Aleksandr Rybalko <ray@dlink.ua>, freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TL-WR1043: switch Message-ID: <CAJ-VmokrnjhvV8rS5s292UdFM4GbyxXJHNhMmyKyDrAdmiJh3Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2DB1EAFF-BFEA-4104-8F5A-E4D00BFDF8F9@lassitu.de> References: <68ABED76-CB1F-405A-8036-EC254F7511FA@lassitu.de> <3B3DB17D-BF87-40EE-B1C1-445F178E8844@lassitu.de> <86030CEE-6839-4B96-ACDC-2BA9AC1E4AE4@lassitu.de> <2D625CC9-A0E3-47AA-A504-CE8FB2F90245@lassitu.de> <203BF1C8-D528-40C9-8611-9C7AC7E43BAB@lassitu.de> <3C0E9CA3-E130-4E9A-ABCC-1782E28999D1@lassitu.de> <2B8826C7-00C7-4117-B424-4A86F1346DFF@bsdimp.com> <20111130231311.4a154bc5.ray@ddteam.net> <CAJ-Vmon8-yo-UQ%2B81feLT-Yr%2BJimMsEbLHWfd9kZP_s4804%2BtA@mail.gmail.com> <20111202164539.fff3ea91.ray@dlink.ua> <20111202191122.GK25601@funkthat.com> <E29B1787-FF42-4462-81C0-8185F70C45B6@lassitu.de> <CAJ-Vmo=YMTuk6gOsjp15QWpRuBPkdDvM3JvamE6E38MhCsL7iw@mail.gmail.com> <2DB1EAFF-BFEA-4104-8F5A-E4D00BFDF8F9@lassitu.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Initial comments (yes, I broke my own rule..) * Don't get rid of SCL_PIN / SDA_PIN: instead rename them to blah_PIN_DEFAULT, and use those defines instead of hardcoding 0 and 1. I have a "thing" for avoiding hard-coded constants, and this makes it more obvious that those 0/1 values are pins rather than true/false. * We should break this out into separate diffs - let's focus right now on fixing/extending the i2c bus code to work with the "strict" flag you've introduced. The rest of the diff is GPIO stuff. That way we can commit it in two parts. Stuff to look at later: * The gpio default stuff is fine (but luis has send me some alternate hint code to look at too!) - however, the capabilities are either in or out. What about pullup, pulldown, etc? * Is there any way to make that "configure GPIO from hint" function generic? Or should we worry about that later on? (eg so the rt305x CPU support from ray@ can also use this?) And my final question: Does this actually now work for mainipulating the switch phy? If so: * how does it work; * do we get per-physical-switch-port statistics somehow? * how do I tinker with it next week when I'm over in Melbourne, talking about this stuff to a group of researchers that want to use the 1043nd? :) Thanks again for this! Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmokrnjhvV8rS5s292UdFM4GbyxXJHNhMmyKyDrAdmiJh3Q>