Hello Wolfgang,
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Peter Tyser,
In message 1285851649.22004.5.camel@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