[PATCH] [RFC] net: smc911x: Drop the standalone EEPROM example

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 07:54:51PM -0500, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 1:55 PM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 07:53:58PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On 3/17/20 7:44 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 07:43:11PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > >> On 3/17/20 7:42 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > >>>> On 3/17/20 7:30 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > >>>>> 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 <marek.vasut@gmail.com> 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 <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>> Cc: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
> > > >>>>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
> > > >>>>>>>> ---
> > > >>>>>>>>  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 <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 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.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> But this drops the ability to access the SMC911x EEPROM too.
> > > >>>> So maybe we need some DM EEPROM implementation in the SMC911x driver ?
> > > >>>> Does anyone have SMC911x with an external EEPROM ?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> All this does is drop an example.  I don't see anything removing API
> > > >>> code itself.
> > > >>
> > > >> Where did I say anything about API code ?
> > > >
> > > > Nowhere, which is my point.  You're just dropping an example, not the
> > > > ability to do $X.
> > >
> > > If $X is ability to access the EEPROM, then I am dropping $X here.
> >
> > No, you're dropping an example of doing $X.
> 
> Correct. But the move to DM in the driver will drop the functions this
> example was using, no?

If it was using something that's not in <_exports.h> I don't see that as
a problem.  A standalone app could do whatever it likes with the
hardware and needs to restore the hardware before passing control back
to U-Boot (if it's doing that).

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20200317/47bd5fed/attachment.sig>