Hi Bin, On 17 January 2016 at 20:25, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> We should avoid weak functions with driver model. Existing boards that use >> driver model don't need them, so let's kill them off. >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >> --- >> >> net/eth.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/net/eth.c b/net/eth.c >> index 45fe6e3..d96d3a5 100644 >> --- a/net/eth.c >> +++ b/net/eth.c >> @@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ static void eth_common_init(void) >> phy_init(); >> #endif >> >> +#ifndef CONFIG_DM_ETH >> /* >> * If board-specific initialization exists, call it. >> * If not, call a CPU-specific one >> @@ -107,10 +108,9 @@ static void eth_common_init(void) >> if (cpu_eth_init(gd->bd) < 0) >> printf("CPU Net Initialization Failed\n"); >> } else { >> -#ifndef CONFIG_DM_ETH >> printf("Net Initialization Skipped\n"); >> -#endif >> } >> +#endif >> } >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_DM_ETH >> -- > > I posted the same patch [1] before. But you and Joe mentioned that > this is still needed on some cases. And even if it is not needed, we > may still have a chance to insert some board-specific stuff into these > two routines. > > [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/510391/
Well I think I was on your side :-) We really don't want this with driver model as calling weak functions is skirting around driver model. If there is a feature that is needed we should model it properly with a uclass (e.g. pinctrl, GPIOs). Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot