On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:02:02PM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > On 02.12.2010 21:56, Uwe Hermann wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 01:55:53PM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > > > >> Avoid printing the chip locks if chip detection was forced because lock > >> access may involve flash chip registers which will not be mapped. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> > >> > > > > Acked-by: Uwe Hermann <[email protected]> > > > > Thanks, committed in r1240. > > > > Looks good. Maybe add a small message to inform the user about this? > > > > Not sure. This is for forced detection only, and there you can't read > the locking status for most chips anyway because the chip didn't respond > in the first place. And for pure read of a chip it is not clear whether > printing locks would make sense.
No, I meant to print something like this: This is a forced read, not trying to print chip lock status. Trying to print any lock info would indeed make no sense. Uwe. -- http://hermann-uwe.de | http://sigrok.org http://randomprojects.org | http://unmaintained-free-software.org _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
