Hello Wolfgang, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > 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 ?
:-( ... this is not only here a problem, this problem occurs *all* over the code, because we have defined that we use CONFIG_SYS_ or CONFIG_ prefixes ... see README "Software Configuration" ... and yes, this is a long fix prefix definition ... especially if we want to add subsystem prefixes like I2C, POST, USB (which I think is not a bad thing) ... then definelength will grow ... bye, Heiko _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
