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 <[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 ? > > 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. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
