From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7228 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2009 22:17:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 7220 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Oct 2009 22:17:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (HELO mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com) (81.103.221.48) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:17:16 +0000 Received: from aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20091026221714.XEHB27507.mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:17:14 +0000 Received: from cog.dallaway.org.uk ([213.106.93.52]) by aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.2.02.00.01 201-2161-120-102-20060912) with ESMTP id <20091026221714.YXTA22934.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@cog.dallaway.org.uk>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:17:14 +0000 Received: from cog.dallaway.org.uk (cog.dallaway.org.uk [127.0.0.1]) by cog.dallaway.org.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9QMHBqu026867; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:17:12 GMT Message-ID: <4AE61FE7.3050404@dallaway.org.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:17:00 -0000 From: John Dallaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090625) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergei Gavrikov CC: ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: Ethernet over SPI driver for ENC424J600 References: <4AE546ED.3000303@siva.com.mk> <4AE56642.20201@dallaway.org.uk> <4AE58C05.9000305@ecoscentric.com> <20091026212810.GA12538@sg-laptop> In-Reply-To: <20091026212810.GA12538@sg-laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2 Hi Sergei Sergei Gavrikov wrote: > Hello guys, may be I miss something but I thought that any Ethernet > eCos driver is enough abstract thing to manage ETH L2 and that does > not depend (well, depends a bit) on any next layer, e.g., a TCP/IP > implementation (RedBoot TCP/IP, *BSD, lwIP* stacks) even if the driver > uses another channel (SPI) to get a memory access to MAC buffers. I > talk about generic io/eth/* stuff and..., well some kind of a future > devs/eth/mc/spi/* eth_drv_.* routines, for example. In theory, of course, you are correct. The network abstractions should ensure compatibility between any ethernet device driver and any TCP/IP stack. But in practice, testing can reveal all manner of issues which no-one was expecting. We have a port of the lwIP 1.3.1 stack in development and it would certainly be useful to test new ethernet drivers against this stack. However, I am _not_ suggesting that the other stacks should now be neglected. John Dallaway