Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 28 Feb 2019 11:47:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20190228.114707.11382969767373748.davem@davemloft.net>
To:     andrew@lunn.ch
Cc:     f.suligoi@asem.it, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com,
        intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net: e1000e: add MAC address kernel cmd line
 parameter
From:   David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190228192958.GA24085@lunn.ch>
References: <20190228163729.GB17912@lunn.ch>
        <6a7a37813e71420b929c769dd1e77664@asem.it>
        <20190228192958.GA24085@lunn.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 20:29:58 +0100

> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 05:13:27PM +0000, Flavio Suligoi wrote:
>> > > Hi Andrew,
>> > >
>> > > we produce a lot of boards and we have to change the MAC address,
>> > > from u-boot, for every board.  So I must save in the u-boot
>> > > environment (SPI NOR flash) the MAC address for every board.
>> > 
>> > Hi Flavio
>> > 
>> > u-boot should be able to write the MAC address in the correct part of
>> > device tree. Boards have been doing this a long time.
>> > 
>> > Module parameters are considered bad. You should only do it if you
>> > have no other option. Here you do have another options, so it is going
>> > to be a hard sell getting David to access your patch.
>> > 
>> > You will have more success by adding a call to
>> > eth_platform_get_mac_address() to the e1000e driver.
>> 
>> You have right, and thanks for your suggestions, 
>> but with a kernel parameter I can use the same method
>> for any board where the NVM is missed, independently of any architecture
>> (with or without the device tree presence - ARM or x86 or others).
> 
> Hi Flavio
> 
> Well, lets wait for David to say what he thinks about the module
> parameter.

I already rejected this, no way... Drivers that already have the
unacceptable module parameter are no an argument for spreading this
mistake further.