+Tom Hi Stephen,
On 22 November 2015 at 10:09, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: > On 11/21/2015 09:50 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 21 November 2015 at 00:27, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: >>> On 11/20/2015 10:38 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 06:35:41 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>>> On 19 November 2015 at 06:12, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 01:49:16 PM, Anand Moon wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi! >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry for the mess: Please accept my apology, I will not in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cool, thanks! :) >>>>> >>>>> This driver should use driver model, right? >>>> >>>> Of course. >>> >>> Hopefully it can support both DM and non-DM? >> >> Why support non-DM? Isn't that just going to slow us down? > > I don't think DM is activated everywhere for Ethernet yet is it? > > I can't see why it'd slow us down. The non-DM code should be quite > static, and only have any effect on DM conversion whenever we finally > pull the trigger to remove it. It shouldn't be any kind of maintenance > issue in the interim. The conversion to driver model is a large and complex undertaking. It cannot be done by a small group of people. If we add new features to the 'old world' then there is a temptation for boards to stay there, which slows the entire migration process. Why convert your board to driver model if all the shiny new drivers you want work without it? We can only remove the old code for a subsystem when every board that uses it is either converted or moved. Adding a new driver that does not use driver model may add a board that uses it. That's one more conversion to do and one more hurdle to jump. We will be much more successful if we avoid adding new features to pre-driver-model code. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
