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

[Florian Fainelli]

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