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 <marek.va...@gmail.com> 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 <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com> > >> Cc: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershber...@ni.com> > >> Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > >> --- > >> 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 <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> > > 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. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
