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;
From:   Flavio Suligoi <f.suligoi@asem.it>
To:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "andrew@lunn.ch" <andrew@lunn.ch>
CC:     "jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
        "intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "andrew@lunn.ch" <andrew@lunn.ch>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] net: e1000e: add MAC address kernel cmd line parameter
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v3] net: e1000e: add MAC address kernel cmd line
 parameter
Thread-Index: AQHUz2za8U5Pv4cZVkOebP6EQ2CVPqX1RhaAgAAUBLD///4SgIAAFXBwgAAawQCAAATLgIAA4SNg
Date:   Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:15:39 +0000
Message-ID: <a9381ec45e9b4e5a8388c8414aadda98@asem.it>
References: <20190228163729.GB17912@lunn.ch>
        <6a7a37813e71420b929c769dd1e77664@asem.it>
        <20190228192958.GA24085@lunn.ch>
 <20190228.114707.11382969767373748.davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190228.114707.11382969767373748.davem@davemloft.net>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> >> > 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.

Hi David and Andrew,

ok, thank you for your suggestions and your time!

Flavio