On 03.06.2009 00:58, Maciej Pijanka wrote: > On 03/06/2009, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> If timing is not set (0), maybe fail as well? That would be accomplished >> by killing the above if branch and changing the message below to say >> "negative/ininitialized value". >> > > sure, but that will fail/skip silently most chips so we also should > change printf_debug to normal one otherwise nobody without -V notice >
Yes! For the "not set" and the "negative value" case, this should definitely be printf, not printf_debug. > that they was skipped not probe failed > (maybe we need more than two levels of verbosity?) > > or some nice way to notify user when -V is not used something like > '%d chips probe were skipped, use -V to figure why' > I think your suggestion of using prinf instead of printf_debug is best. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
