On Monday 31 October 2011 11:12:12 Andy Fleming wrote: > On Oct 31, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Andy Fleming wrote: > >> We want to move everything to phylib, and we definitely don't want > >> new drivers using the miiphy infrastructure. > > > > How about using gcc's deprecated function feature? Or is that too > > aggressive? > > I don't think we want every net driver prior to the last release to create > a warning. We may switch to that after we get some momentum on switching > drivers over. The first goal is just to provide information that a new > driver-writer may see so that the old API doesn't expand.
right, this is why i didn't suggest a #warning or __deprecated before. i'm pretty sure way more code is using the old phy layer than the new phy layer atm. i also want to say that the new phy layer doesn't have all the support that the old one did ... if you look in include/miiphy.h, there are a few defines at the end there which are not in linux/mii.h. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
