On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 07:54:51PM -0500, Joe Hershberger wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 1:55 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
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.vasut@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+renesas@gmail.com >>>>> Cc: Joe Hershberger joe.hershberger@ni.com >>>>> Cc: Tom Rini trini@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.masahiro@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.
Correct. But the move to DM in the driver will drop the functions this example was using, no?
If it was using something that's not in <_exports.h> I don't see that as a problem. A standalone app could do whatever it likes with the hardware and needs to restore the hardware before passing control back to U-Boot (if it's doing that).