Hi Heinrich, On 24 March 2018 at 21:41, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.deb...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hello Simon, > > in patch > db9391e165dd ("net: Move driver-model code into its own file") > function eth_write_hwaddr hides() you chose to introduce the follwing lines: > > static int eth_write_hwaddr(struct udevice *dev) > ... > /* > * Drivers are allowed to decide not to implement this at > * run-time. E.g. Some devices may use it and some may not. > */ > ret = eth_get_ops(dev)->write_hwaddr(dev); > if (ret == -ENOSYS) > ret = 0; > > For implementing efi_net_station_address() it would be preferable if the > function would return -ENOSYS to signal that changing the MAC address > failed.
Actually -ENOSYS if the method is not implemented, and -ENXIO or something if the write failed. There is a clear distinction between: * -ENOSYS the method is not implemented (so you might choose to not worry about the error) * -Esomething_else - the method is implemented, but failed (so you probably want to return an error) > > I could not find any caller of the driver model version of > eth_write_hwaddr(). Do you remember why you made this choice? > > Best regards > > Heinrich Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot