On Wednesday 02 November 2011 11:13:31 Simon Glass wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > I just ran over this old posting again: > > > > 09/10/2008 Ricardo Ribalda D [PATCH] I2C EEPROM simulator v2 > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/46964 > > > > We never accepted this for U-Boot mainline, but in the context of the > > Sandbox environment it might be interesting again. > > > > What do you think? > > Yes I think it is interesting. Both Mike and I have done a SPI EEPROM > implementation which is file-backed, whereas this has CONFIG-defined > data.
we've done a SPI flash backend. i recall the EEPROM layer being different (and ugly). not sure how it'd work in this case. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
