On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:30:07PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2014-07-11 21:13:22, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > Dear Pavel, > > > > In message <[email protected]> you wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry, but this is not really helpful. "Not set" and "not valid" are > > > > different things. "Not valid" might be confusing when none is set at > > > > all. > > > > > > Well, it is what the code checks for. > > > > > > > Also, if I understand correctly, we will now have _two_ error messages > > > > ("ethernet address not valid" followed by "could not set ethernet > > > > address")? That's not so nice either. > > > > > > Ok, would it be acceptable to change 'count not set' message to 'could > > > not set or invalid address' and print the address as well? > > > > Print the address - if it is not set? I think we should provide useful > > error messages. Either the address has not been set, then we should > > say so, or it is invalid, then we should say that. > > Well, it may be unset (00:00:...) or it may be invalid (b2:a3:...). > > I think I do not understand you correctly. Yes, we should provide > useful error messages, and current one is untrue and confusing. > > Can you suggest a patch or messages you'd like to see?
Yes, say "unset" when it is unset and "invalid" when set but not valid. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
