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

[Marek Vasut]

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 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 ?
> 
> 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