Re: [PATCH v2 00/29] at24: remove at24_platform_data

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 10/3/2018 1:15 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
pt., 31 sie 2018 o 21:46 Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 10:04:57AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
Most boards use the EEPROM to store the MAC address. This series adds
support for cell lookups to the nvmem framework, registers relevant
cells for all users, adds nvmem support to eth_platform_get_mac_address(),
converts davinci_emac driver to using it and replaces at24_platform_data
with device properties.

We already have:

of_get_nvmem_mac_address() (which does exactly what you're adding,
except it's DT specific)
of_get_mac_address()
fwnode_get_mac_address()
device_get_mac_address()

and now you've taught me that this exists too:

eth_platform_get_mac_address()

These mostly don't share code, and with your series, they'll start to
diverge even more as to what they support. Can you please help rectify
that, instead of widening the gap?

For instance, you can delete most of eth_platform_get_mac_address() and
replace it with device_get_mac_address() [1]. And you could add your new
stuff to fwnode_get_mac_address().

And important part to note here is that you code isn't just useful for
ethernet -- it could be useful for Wifi devices too. So IMO, sticking it
only in an "eth" function is the wrong move.

Brian

[1] arch_get_platform_mac_address() is the only part I wouldn't want to
replicate into a truly generic helper. The following should be a no-op
refactor, AIUI:


The only user of arch_get_platform_mac_address() is sparc. It returns
an address that seems to be read from some kind of EEPROM. I'm not
familiar with this arch though. I'm wondering if we could somehow
seamlessly remove this call and then convert all users of
eth_platform_get_mac_address() to using device_get_mac_address()?

David: I couldn't find a place in sparc code where any ethernet device
would be registered, so is there a chance that nobody is using it?

SPARC uses a true Open Firmware implementation, so it would register drivers through the CONFIG_OF infrastructure.
--
Florian



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux