Dear Peter Tyser,
In message <1285851649.22004.5.ca...@ptyser-laptop> you wrote:
>
> Currently the POST code makes sure every entry in the white list is
> found, but it also considers any unexpected devices found an error. Eg
> you plug in a daughter card with an EEPROM on it that isn't listed in
> I2C_ADDR_LIST, and the POST fails with:
> I2C: addr 50 not expected
Yes, and this is actually intentional.
> As an alternative to this patch we could not treat unexpected devices as
> an error, but you'd lose a small amount of POST coverage and
> flexibility.
No, we don't want to do this.
So the IGNORE_LIST is intended for devices that may or may not be
present, and neither state is considered an error?
> > > > I2C_POST_ADDR_IGNORE_LIST
> > >
> > > I was following the lead of the existing I2C_ADDR_LIST define. Agreed
> > > it should be named differently. I'll go with CONFIG_SYS_POST_I2C_ADDRS
> > > and CONFIG_SYS_POST_I2C_IGNORES unless someone else chimes in.
> >
> > Argh... I don't like identifiers that need half a line or more...
>
> Agreed, but its hard when over half the name is the mandatory
> CONFIG_SYS_POST_ prefix. Any suggestions?
Omit that ?
<me hides />
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
In an infinite universe all things are possible, including the possi-
bility that the universe does not exist.
- Terry Pratchett, _The Dark Side of the Sun_
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
