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