Hi Bin,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Joe,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joe Hershberger joe.hershberger@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bin,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Joe,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Joe Hershberger joe.hershberger@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bin,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
With driver model, board_eth_init() or cpu_eth_init() is not needed. Remove the call to these in eth_common_init().
I'm pretty sure Simon needed this when he ported some allwinner board originally.
3bc427006ac8d0661169ed771b3cac7e86f960e8 (dm: net: Use existing Ethernet init for driver model)
I think my patch does not break Simon's. My patch only comments out the call to board_eth_init() or cpu_eth_init() which is not needed for driver model. Other stuff in eth_common_init() is still there. In fact, my patch series also needs phy_init() call (required by pch_gbe driver).
Even if it doesn't break Simon's board, why remove the ability for a board to add eth_init code. You're trying to say that there is no case where a DM board would need to init anything related to eth. That seems unlikely.
I believe with driver model, we should avoid these calls. All the drive initialization needs to be done in the bind or probe phase, and called by driver model automatically. Like pci_eth_init() which just calls non-dm ethernet drivers, and pci_eth_init() can be called from board_eth_init() or cpu_eth_init().
I agree we shouldn't use them if it makes sense not to.
But I think you are right, there might be some board-specific thing to be put there, even right now it does not break any board. But that's maybe we don't have proper driver model uclass to handle these misc things?
I think we can evaluate that for each case. We don't necessarily want the uclass to be a union of all crazy board features.
Also, why is it hurting your board to have an optional call to such a function. Presumably you just don't define those functions and you're fine, right?
It does not hurt but I think at least we should comment out the following printf for DM.
} else { printf("Net Initialization Skipped\n"); }This is misleading message.
I agree.
I guess it can just be put back when such a board is converted.
Regards, Bin