> So the IGNORE_LIST is intended for devices that may or may not be > present, and neither state is considered an error?
Correct. And also for devices that may or may not be present, but are impossible to determine if they should/shouldn't be present, so its impossible to determine what an error case is (if that makes sense...). I gave a few examples in the original patch of when this might be useful. Most of the examples could be better solved by a more complicated, dynamically generated I2C_ADDR_LIST (eg detect if an XMC card is present, and if so, add device 0x50 to the list of expected devices), but it seems like overkill for a simple POST. > > > > > 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, Peter _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
