From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:50:49 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] NET: NE2000: Cleanup IO accessors
In-Reply-To: <CANr=Z=aBCqUdTq-oibgX991rpaa7Z9z-uCyjmZKrbwH_CCiWgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1323565772-4498-1-git-send-email-marek.vasut@gmail.com>
	<201112162136.38003.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
	<CANr=Z=aBCqUdTq-oibgX991rpaa7Z9z-uCyjmZKrbwH_CCiWgw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201207131250.50047.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Dear Joe Hershberger,

> Hi Marek,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Friday 16 December 2011 13:13:33 Marek Vasut wrote:
> >> > On Friday 16 December 2011 12:33:53 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > > rename ISA_OFFSET to CONFIG_NE2000_IO_OFFSET, then move the "2" to
> >> > > CONFIG_NE2000_IO_STRIDE, and move them both to the board config
> >> > > header. then you get one unified set:
> >> > > 
> >> > > #define DP_IN(_b_, _o_, _d_) \
> >> > > 
> >> > >   (_d_) = readw((void *)((_b_) + ((_o_) * CONFIG_NE2000_IO_STRIDE) +
> >> > >   \
> >> > >   
> >> > >           CONFIG_NE2000_IO_OFFSET));
> >> > > 
> >> > > etc...
> >> > > 
> >> > > if you really wanted to clean up the driver, the DP_XXX funcs would
> >> > > get turned into C code as static inline helpers, and the base +
> >> > > register offset would get turned into a C struct.
> >> > 
> >> > Ok, so if you had two different piece of hardware that had different
> >> > NE2000_IO_OFFSET and STRIDE, running the same u-boot, how'd you handle
> >> > it ?
> >> 
> >> do you actually have this issue ?  there are plenty of theoretical
> >> situations like this which would break a significant number (majority?)
> >> of drivers in the tree.  so unless this is a real case, i'd ignore it
> >> for now and stick with what optimizes away to no overhead.
> > 
> > Sadly, I almost do. Not now of course, but eventually, I'll be there :-(
> 
> Are you planning to improve this patch?

No, I'll eventually rework this one alongside the whole DM crap.

> I think at the very least you should have a compile option to enable
> this "functional interface" presumably behind a macro, but every user
> of NE2000 should not have to pay the price.  However, like Mike
> suggested, you should only add this complexity if you actually have
> this problem on a board.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Joe

Best regards,
Marek Vasut