From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 19:43:11 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] [RFC] net: smc911x: Drop the standalone EEPROM example In-Reply-To: <20200317184217.GW12423@bill-the-cat> References: <20200314231857.3161106-1-marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com> <20200317183004.GV12423@bill-the-cat> <53e05978-b941-08bc-18a7-6551f3cc1e88@gmail.com> <20200317184217.GW12423@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <8921db1f-f494-e237-a624-fcab8dfd688f@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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 ? -- Best regards, Marek Vasut