On 23.10.2018 11:31, Martin Fuzzey wrote: > On 23/10/18 09:07, eugen.hris...@microchip.com wrote: >> >> On 22.10.2018 19:51, Martin Fuzzey wrote: >>> Building with CONFIG_W1 and CONFIG_CMD_W1 but without CONFIG_W1_EEPROM >>> fails with >>> drivers/w1/w1-uclass.c:104: undefined reference to >>> `w1_eeprom_register_new_device' >>> cmd/w1.c:93: undefined reference to `w1_eeprom_read_buf' >>> >>> Fix this. >> I would prefer if you let the w1 read command to be accessible >> regardless if CONFIG_W1_EEPROM is defined or not. Hence have only the w1 >> eeprom reads under the ifdef... >> The w1_read checks for devices anyway and for the bus, so it should >> print invalid bus/device if nothing is present there. >> Any opinion on this ? > > I don't really have a strong opinion on this. > > Completely removing non implemented commands seems to be a common thing > to do in u-boot (cmd/i2c.c for instance) presumably to keep the image > size as small as possible. > But for the one wire case the code space saving is likely to be small > and, currently at least, there is little point buiding without > CONFIG_W1_EEPROM, not sure if that will change some day - of course > there are other types of one wire devices like various sensors but they > are probably of less interest in the context of a bootloader. > > Let's wait a bit and see what Maxime or anyone else has to say about this.
I tried as much as possible to decouple the W1 bus from the W1 EEPROM memories. It is possible that we will have a different framework for EEPROMs that will include both 1wire and i2c eeproms, and then the interfacing would be pretty easy to change to. That's why I am thinking that w1 bus read should not be much affected if the 1w EEPROMs are unknown to U-boot > > Regards, > > Martin > > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot