On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:29:24 +0200 Uwe Hermann <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 02:23:05PM +0200, Stefan Tauner wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Uwe Hermann <[email protected]> thanks, r1379. > > + msg_pinfo("Found chipset \"%s %s\"", > > + chipset_enables[i].vendor_name, > > + chipset_enables[i].device_name); > > + msg_pdbg("with PCI ID %04x:%04x", > > chipset_enables[i].vendor_id, > > chipset_enables[i].device_id); > > I'd print the IDs unconditionally, not only with -V, but that's for > another patch. me too, but i am pretty sure carl-daniel would not. and i think in this case he is right because the chipset pci ids are really pretty worthless for a normal user... they are not even "chipset pci ids", but pci ids of some pci lpc device... hm. but i should have added them to the untested message when the user does not send a verbose log but just that output... else we can't distinguish between multiple pci ids for a single chipset (e.g. MCP61). let's hope the users behave. :) -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
