From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 20:59:08 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] [RFC] net: smc911x: Drop the standalone EEPROM example In-Reply-To: References: <20200317183004.GV12423@bill-the-cat> <53e05978-b941-08bc-18a7-6551f3cc1e88@gmail.com> <20200317184217.GW12423@bill-the-cat> <8921db1f-f494-e237-a624-fcab8dfd688f@gmail.com> <20200317184453.GX12423@bill-the-cat> <8da40946-b4aa-96e0-a6b6-023d305b4963@gmail.com> <20200317185454.GY12423@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <20200318005908.GZ12423@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 07:54:51PM -0500, Joe Hershberger wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 1:55 PM Tom Rini 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 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. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 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: