commands: Remove reference to non-existent CONFIG_CMD_I2C.
PATCH 1/1 commands: Remove reference to non-existent CONFIG_CMD_I2C.
---
the commands directory doesn't even have an i2c.c source file, so
it's clearly safe to remove this reference. although i'm assuming that, at some point down the road, there will be an "i2c" command since that would be useful.
commands/Makefile +0 -1
@@ -4,7 +4,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_LOADY) += loadb.o xyzModem.o obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_LOADS) += loads.o obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_ECHO) += echo.o obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_MEMORY) += mem.o -obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_I2C) += i2c.o obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_LOADS) += s_record.o obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_MTEST) += memtest.o obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_EDIT) += edit.o
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Quoted 9 lines · Robert P. J. Day
Signed-off-by Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]>---
the commands directory doesn't even have an
i2c.csource file, so
it's clearly safe to remove this reference. although i'm assuming that, at some point down the road, there will be an "i2c" command since that would be useful.
Ok, applied.
Is a i2c command really useful? For I2C eeproms you would create an epprom driver which creates a file under /dev/ which you can then access using the usual mm/mw commands.
Maybe an i2c command could be useful to register a new device on an I2C bus.
Sascha
Quoted 32 lines
commands/Makefile +0
-1@@ -4,7 +4,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_LOADY) += loadb.o xyzModem.o obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_LOADS) += loads.o obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_ECHO) += echo.o obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_MEMORY) += mem.o -obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_I2C) += i2c.o obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_LOADS) += s_record.o obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_MTEST) += memtest.o obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_EDIT) += edit.orday
--========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADALinux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday========================================================================
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Signature · 9 lines
Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Quoted 11 lines · Sascha Hauer
Quoted 9 lines · Robert P. J. Day
Signed-off-by Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]>---
the commands directory doesn't even have an
i2c.csource file, so
it's clearly safe to remove this reference. although i'm assuming that, at some point down the road, there will be an "i2c" command since that would be useful.
Quoted 6 lines
Ok, applied.
Is a i2c command really useful? For I2C eeproms you would create an epprom driver which creates a file under
/dev/which you can then access using the usual mm/mw commands. Maybe an i2c command could be useful to register a new device on an I2C bus.
i'm not sure -- maybe it *isn't* all that useful. if at some point
it becomes useful, we can always put this back in. from the original u-boot, i recall being able to at least run "i2c probe" or something like that.
in any event, that doesn't exist now so no big deal.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Sascha" == Sascha Hauer <[email protected]> writes:
Sascha> Ok, applied.
Sascha> Is a i2c command really useful? For I2C eeproms you would Sascha> create an epprom driver which creates a file under /dev/ which Sascha> you can then access using the usual mm/mw commands. Maybe an Sascha> i2c command could be useful to register a new device on an I2C Sascha> bus.
I could see basic I2C access being useful for debugging (of non-eeprom devices).
Signature · 6 lines
Bye, Peter Korsgaard _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Quoted 4 lines · Peter Korsgaard
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Sascha" == Sascha Hauer <[email protected]> writes:
Sascha> Ok, applied.
Quoted 8 lines
Sascha> Is a i2c command really useful? For I2C eeproms you would Sascha> create an epprom driver which creates a file under
/dev/which Sascha> you can then access using the usual mm/mw commands. Maybe an Sascha> i2c command could be useful to register a new device on an I2C Sascha> bus.I could see basic I2C access being useful for debugging (of non-eeprom devices).
i was imagining the same thing, but since there's no such support at
the moment, there's little value in leaving that config variable there.
just to be clear, i'm a big fan of adding new functionality all at
once, in one logical patch. when i run my scanning scripts on the linux kernel, i frequently get *numerous* hits on undefined or unreferences CONFIG_ variables, which turn out to be because someone has *partially* added a feature but it's not complete, so you have mysterious code or variables that no one else seems to reference, with people saying, "oh, yeah, i'm getting to that, i'll be adding some code to hook up with that shortly and finish it off."
personally, i'd rather that didn't happen, just because it's easier
to track paches if they're logically complete and coherent. in short, when the time comes to add an "i2c" command, we can put everything back in in one patch. sound reasonable?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Robert" == Robert P J Day <[email protected]> writes:
Hi,
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I could see basic I2C access being useful for debugging (of non-eeprom devices).
Robert> i was imagining the same thing, but since there's no such
Robert> support at the moment, there's little value in leaving that Robert> config variable there.
Agreed.
Robert> personally, i'd rather that didn't happen, just because it's
Robert> easier to track paches if they're logically complete and Robert> coherent. in short, when the time comes to add an "i2c" Robert> command, we can put everything back in in one patch. sound Robert> reasonable?
Sure.
Signature · 6 lines
Bye, Peter Korsgaard _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox