On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 09:02:06AM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Paul Brook schrieb:
> >> To emulate hardware without an EEPROM,
> >> EEPROM_SIZE may be set to 0.
> >
> > If might, but it isn't.
> >
> > This patch introduces a condition that will never be false. Please
> > don't do
> > that. I consid
Paul Brook schrieb:
>> To emulate hardware without an EEPROM,
>> EEPROM_SIZE may be set to 0.
>
> If might, but it isn't.
>
> This patch introduces a condition that will never be false. Please
> don't do
> that. I consider code that is never used to be actively harmful. Any
> feature
> that require
> To emulate hardware without an EEPROM,
> EEPROM_SIZE may be set to 0.
If might, but it isn't.
This patch introduces a condition that will never be false. Please don't do
that. I consider code that is never used to be actively harmful. Any feature
that requires the user hack the source may as
On 04/06/2010 09:01 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Richard Henderson schrieb:
>> On 04/06/2010 04:44 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
>>
>>> +#if EEPROM_SIZE > 0
>>> /* Add 64 * 2 EEPROM. i82557 and i82558 support a 64 word EEPROM,
>>> * i82559 and later support 64 or 256 word EEPROM. */
>>> s->
Richard Henderson schrieb:
> On 04/06/2010 04:44 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
>
>> +#if EEPROM_SIZE > 0
>> /* Add 64 * 2 EEPROM. i82557 and i82558 support a 64 word EEPROM,
>> * i82559 and later support 64 or 256 word EEPROM. */
>> s->eeprom = eeprom93xx_new(EEPROM_SIZE);
>> +#endif
>>
On 04/06/2010 04:44 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> +#if EEPROM_SIZE > 0
> /* Add 64 * 2 EEPROM. i82557 and i82558 support a 64 word EEPROM,
> * i82559 and later support 64 or 256 word EEPROM. */
> s->eeprom = eeprom93xx_new(EEPROM_SIZE);
> +#endif
If EEPROM_SIZE is known to be defined, e
To emulate hardware without an EEPROM,
EEPROM_SIZE may be set to 0.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil
---
hw/eepro100.c |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/eepro100.c b/hw/eepro100.c
index cedc427..e12ee23 100644
--- a/hw/eepro100.c
+++ b/hw/eepro100.c
@@ -1866,
