On 03/06/2009, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
updated patch in attachment -- Maciej Pijanka, PLD-Linux Developer, Reg Linux user #133161 POE/Perl user
probe_timing.patch
Description: Binary data
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
