[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/9] dm: eth: Do not call board_eth_init() or cpu_eth_init()

[Bin Meng]

Hi Joe,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joe Hershberger
<joe.hershberger at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Joe Hershberger
>> <joe.hershberger at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Bin,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at 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(). 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?

> 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 guess it can just be put back when such a board is converted.
>

Regards,
Bin