Hi Bin, On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Joe, > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joe Hershberger > <joe.hershber...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. >> > > I believe with driver model, we should avoid these calls. All the > drive initialization needs to be done in the bind or probe phase, and > called by driver model automatically. Like pci_eth_init() which just > calls non-dm ethernet drivers, and pci_eth_init() can be called from > board_eth_init() or cpu_eth_init().
I agree we shouldn't use them if it makes sense not to. > But I think you are right, there > might be some board-specific thing to be put there, even right now it > does not break any board. But that's maybe we don't have proper driver > model uclass to handle these misc things? I think we can evaluate that for each case. We don't necessarily want the uclass to be a union of all crazy board features. >> 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? >> > > It does not hurt but I think at least we should comment out the > following printf for DM. > > } else { > printf("Net Initialization Skipped\n"); > } > > This is misleading message. I agree. >> I guess it can just be put back when such a board is converted. >> > > Regards, > Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot