On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:43:17 -0700 Steve Sakoman <st...@sakoman.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:26 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > Hmm, the current use of that seems to be suppressing warnings about > > NAND that isn't present at all, not about NAND whose type we don't > > recognize. > > Well, that is precisely the case for new Beagle's and Overo's -- these > boards do not have nand and output this error. Right, I just don't want to end up suppressing the message if there's a real flash that just needs an ID table update. > > Perhaps we could instead suppress the warning only for probably-invalid > > values such as 0x00 and 0xff, if that's how a missing NAND chip > > manifests? > > That would also be acceptable to me. Is this your preferred fix? Yes. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
