Hi Bin, On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Joe, > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Joe Hershberger > <joe.hershber...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Bin, >> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> With driver model, board_eth_init() or cpu_eth_init() is not needed. >>> Remove the call to these in eth_common_init(). >> >> I'm pretty sure Simon needed this when he ported some allwinner board >> originally. >> >> 3bc427006ac8d0661169ed771b3cac7e86f960e8 (dm: net: Use existing >> Ethernet init for driver model) >> > > I think my patch does not break Simon's. My patch only comments out > the call to board_eth_init() or cpu_eth_init() which is not needed for > driver model. Other stuff in eth_common_init() is still there. In > fact, my patch series also needs phy_init() call (required by pch_gbe > driver).
Even if it doesn't break Simon's board, why remove the ability for a board to add eth_init code. You're trying to say that there is no case where a DM board would need to init anything related to eth. That seems unlikely. Also, why is it hurting your board to have an optional call to such a function. Presumably you just don't define those functions and you're fine, right? I guess it can just be put back when such a board is converted. -Joe _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
