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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>> Cc: Joe Hershberger <[email protected]> >>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <[email protected]> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> 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 ? -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
