On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 07:53:58PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 3/17/20 7:44 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 07:43:11PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> On 3/17/20 7:42 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> Where did I say anything about API code ? > > > > Nowhere, which is my point. You're just dropping an example, not the > > ability to do $X. > > If $X is ability to access the EEPROM, then I am dropping $X here.
No, you're dropping an example of doing $X. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
