On 15:54 Fri 17 Sep , Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:50:37PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On 15:45 Fri 17 Sep , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > Hi J, > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 01:27:37PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > if you specify id = 0 the next available id will be taken > > > > otherwise fail if already registered > > > > > > I think we need a better solution here. Being able to specify an id > > > is a good idea in general, but since 0 is a valid id we should be able > > > to specify exactly this id aswell. > > > An idea is to use -1 for a dynamic id, but of course this needs changes > > > to all existing devices. > > I prefer to do it a second step > > in this case > > I prefer doing it first, because it makes sure the problem is getting > solved. I prefer to do a second incremental patch Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
