1 Sep
2010
1 Sep
'10
7:55 p.m.
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:43:17 -0700 Steve Sakoman steve@sakoman.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:26 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Hmm, the current use of that seems to be suppressing warnings about NAND that isn't present at all, not about NAND whose type we don't recognize.
Well, that is precisely the case for new Beagle's and Overo's -- these boards do not have nand and output this error.
Right, I just don't want to end up suppressing the message if there's a real flash that just needs an ID table update.
Perhaps we could instead suppress the warning only for probably-invalid values such as 0x00 and 0xff, if that's how a missing NAND chip manifests?
That would also be acceptable to me. Is this your preferred fix?
Yes.
-Scott