On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 00:27:49 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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: > >> > >> 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. good idea imo. > > 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. not at all. i am aware of that, but that is not my problem but theirs :) i would even argue that flashrom is a good opportunity for them to get familiar with unices in the form of livecds, but that is of course not my decision to make (not until i am leader of the world, that is :) what i basically tried to say is, that i am glad flashrom is able to run in dos (more or less), but jumping through too many hoops is not an option (for me). i will try to factor in their line limit and inability to scroll (is that still correct for freedos?) in future patches though. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
