libbsdport and newer Intel NICs

[Chris Johns]

On 18/06/2015 9:17 am, Wu, Mark H. wrote:
> I've gotten around the executive shutdowns that I was having while trying to bring up the network interfaces on my board, and have a few questions.

Great.

> 
> 1. The mechanism for network interfaces in RTEMS itself was a little more clean - you provided a list of devices and it looped through the list with an attachment function. It seems like with libbsdport, this is more awkward - you create an attachment function that calls libbsdport_netdriver_attach() with a pointer to the entry in the table of rtems_bsdnet_ifconfig structures. My problem was that I had skipped that step and had tried to use libbsdport_netdriver_attach() as the attachment function, with poor results. But now you basically have to have a hand-coded unique function for each network device? (A unique function for each entry?) It seems odd that I create rtems_bsdnet_config with a list of rtems_bsdnet_ifconfig structures, each of which has a pointer to an attach function, where I have to create attach functions that point back to that entry which points to it. Or am I missing something? But since there's no parameter telling the attach function about that entry,!
  I have to
 
>  create unique attach functions for each entry so that they can point to the correct element in the tables?

I do not think you are missing anything. It has been many years since I
played with this code and I seem to remember a number of steps are
needed to get it working. The code I last used is here if it helps ....

https://git.rtems.org/chrisj/rtl.git/tree/init.c

> 
> 2. I believe that my Ethernet interfaces are probably newer than the devices in libbsdport. I am currently running on a hand-me-down x86 board with the following devices: LAN1: Intel 82567, LAN2: Intel 82583V. I am not familiar with libbsdport or its origins... where should I go to look to see if there is a newer version that supports these chips? Or is this the wrong question or wrong approach?
> 

Libbsdport is present and ok as is for use with the existing stack. The
work to add a driver is more than most because the BSD base is limited.
The rtems-libbsd path is a better. It is being worked on and improving
and it is where efforts are being focused but it is new.

Chris