Am 21.07.2011 23:59 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:55:07 +0200 > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Am 21.07.2011 14:23 schrieb Stefan Tauner: >> >>> old output: >>> Found chipset "Intel QS57", enabling flash write... OK. >>> This chipset supports the following protocols: FWH, SPI. >>> >>> new non-verbose output for tested chipsets: >>> Found chipset "Intel QS57". Enabling flash write... OK. >>> This chipset supports the following protocols: FWH, SPI. >>> >>> new non-verbose output for untested chipsets: >>> Found chipset "Intel QS57". >>> This chipset is marked as untested. If you are using an up-to-date version >>> of flashrom please email a report to [email protected] including a >>> verbose (-V) log. Thank you! >>> Enabling flash write... OK. >>> This chipset supports the following protocols: FWH, SPI. >>> >>> >> 4 additional lines... sorry, but that's simply too much. We have users >> of the DOS version of flashrom, and they have an 80x25 terminal, so >> wasting 4 lines (16% of the screen) is not acceptable. 2 more lines are >> already 8% of the screen. >> > but 9 lines for untested chips is worth it? >
Absolutely not. You are correct that this is an imbalance which needs to be fixed. >> The following text would be shorter (2 additional lines), but I'd be >> happy to see a patch trimming it down even more to one additional line. >> >> Found chipset "Intel QS57" (untested). Enabling flash write... OK. >> If you are using an up-to-date version of flashrom please email a report >> to [email protected] including a verbose (-V) log. Thank you! >> This chipset supports the following protocols: FWH, SPI. >> > this one prints the message after enabling write... the computer could > already be on fire at that time if the chipset enable wrecks havoc! > You're right, this is indeed a possible outcome. We could downgrade "Enabling flash write... OK" and "This chipset supports the following protocols: foo, bar" to msg_pdbg because that information is only interesting for debugging anyway. That would also allow us to keep the current (svn HEAD) message order and avoid the corner case you found. > seriously... i thought it is better to call the chipset enable after the > message. and TBH i did not put too much thought into reducing line > count, because my message was already way shorter than the chip message. > till now i was mainly concerned about character/word count in messages > not line count. dos users... well they should get an OS, use redirection > or not get in my way :P > You'd be surprised how many of our users use DOS, usually because they don't know Linux. > for most users (those with supported chipsets) there is no change at > all. for others this message comes pretty early in the process so the > really important messages are not dropped... i can live with this patch > (and it is already committed). > Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
