I2CSlave *at24c_eeprom_init(I2CBus *bus, uint8_t address, uint32_t rom_size)
{
- I2CSlave *i2c_dev = i2c_slave_new(TYPE_AT24C_EE, address);
- DeviceState *dev = DEVICE(i2c_dev);
+ return at24c_eeprom_init_rom(bus, address, rom_size, NULL, 0);
+}
+
+I2CSlave *at24c_eeprom_init_rom(I2CBus *bus, uint8_t address, uint32_t
rom_size,
+ const uint8_t *init_rom, uint32_t
init_rom_size)
+{
+ EEPROMState *s;
+
+ s = AT24C_EE(qdev_new(TYPE_AT24C_EE));
+
+ qdev_prop_set_uint8(DEVICE(s), "address", address);
Why did you switch from using i2c_slave_new()? Using it is more
documentation and future-proofing than convenience.
Oh, yeah that's my bad. I was probably doing it so that all the qdev_prop_set
calls to the object are in the same place, but I probably should have just kept
i2c_slave_new() and initialized only the at24c-eeprom properties here, instead
of initializing the I2CSlave ones too.
Will you send a v5 ?
Thanks,
C.
