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 <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. > > 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. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
