[PATCH] [RFC] net: smc911x: Drop the standalone EEPROM example

[Marek Vasut]

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 at 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 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger at ni.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini at 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 at 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 ?

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut