[U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc/eeprom: update MAX_NUM_PORTS to adapt non-256-bytes EEPROM

[Liu Shengzhou-B36685]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sun york-R58495
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 1:29 AM
> To: Timur Tabi
> Cc: Liu Shengzhou-B36685; U-Boot Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc/eeprom: update MAX_NUM_PORTS to adapt non-
> 256-bytes EEPROM
> 
> On 08/30/2013 06:56 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Shengzhou Liu
> > <Shengzhou.Liu at freescale.com> wrote:
> >
> >>  #ifdef CONFIG_SYS_I2C_EEPROM_NXID
> >> +/* some boards with non-256-bytes EEPROM have special define */
> >> +/* for MAX_NUM_PORTS in board-specific file */ #ifndef MAX_NUM_PORTS
> >>  #define MAX_NUM_PORTS  23
> >> +#endif
> >>  #define NXID_VERSION   1
> >>  #endif
> >
> > I'll have to think about this.  On one hand, this works.  As long as
> > the board-specific value of MAX_NUM_PORTS is valid, then it will work.
> >
> > On the other hand, it's fragile and violates the specification.  An
> > NXID v1 EEPROM has the CRC at offset 0xFC.  I'm just not sure it
> > really matters.
> 
> We need to verify the CRC is still valid.

It had been verified on P1010RDB-PB with 128 Bytes, The CRC is still
at the end of EEPROM and is still valid.

-Shengzhou

> >
> > York, I'm okay with this patch if you are.  You're the one maintaining
> > this code now.  Is there anyone left at Freescale who cares about the
> > integrity of the EEPROM specification?
> 
> Some many boards pop up from different design groups. Unfortunately not all came
> to us to review. It is often too late when we find the design is different.
> 
> York