From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 14:30:04 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] [RFC] net: smc911x: Drop the standalone EEPROM example In-Reply-To: References: <20200314231857.3161106-1-marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20200317183004.GV12423@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 07:23:07PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 3/17/20 7:10 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 8:19 AM Marek Vasut wrote: > >> > >> Drop the example, for two reasons. First, it is tapping directly into > >> the IO accessors of the SMC911x, while it should instead go through > >> the net device API. Second, this makes conversion of the SMC911x driver > >> to DM real hard. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut > >> Cc: Joe Hershberger > >> Cc: Tom Rini > >> --- > >> examples/standalone/Makefile | 1 - > >> examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c | 379 --------------------------- > >> 2 files changed, 380 deletions(-) > >> delete mode 100644 examples/standalone/smc911x_eeprom.c > > > > > > Yeah, I was disturbed by this example code. > > > > I agree we should drop it. > > > > Reviewed-by: Masahiro Yamada > > Well I dunno. Can this be rewritten on top of DM somehow ? Do we even > have U-Boot application API to access DM EEPROM ? We should just drop it I think. The biggest surface we have today for external application is EFI application now, not U-Boot specific API. We can't drop the API but we don't expand it without very good reason. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 659 bytes Desc: not available URL: