On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:38:40 +0100 Pete Batard pbatard@gmail.com wrote:
- {OLIMEX_VID, OLIMEX_ARM_OCD_PID, OK, "Olimex", "ARM-USB-OCD"},
- {OLIMEX_VID, OLIMEX_ARM_TINY_PID, OK, "Olimex", "ARM-USB-TINY"},
- {OLIMEX_VID, OLIMEX_ARM_OCD_H_PID, OK, "Olimex", "ARM-USB-OCD-H"},
- {OLIMEX_VID, OLIMEX_ARM_TINY_H_PID, OK, "Olimex", "ARM-USB-TINY-H"},
hello pete, thanks for your patch(es)!
in the table above all programmers are marked ok although they were not all tested... i am quoting my last mail: "please add them and just mark them as NT in the array".
i also do not recognize the reason to order the devices like that (not only the table, but also the macros and the if/elses). grouping OCDs and TINYs together respectively, or ordering them by PID could make more sense? i am not necessarily demanding that you change the order. it just looked odd when i looked at the patch and would probably look odd to others when the see the source or the output of flashrom -L.
regarding the man page patch:
-can be any of +can be one of
how is that better (non-native speaker here...)?
-.BR "* ft2232_spi" " (for SPI flash ROMs attached to a FT2232H/FT4232H/JTAGkey \ +.BR "* ft2232_spi" " (for SPI flash ROMs attached to an FT2232(H) or FT4232(H) \
you said in your previous mail...
Please note that the External_flashers/programmers section of the Supported_hardware wiki [2] should probably also be updated to only mention FT2232/FT4232 (without the H), as we now have evidence that FT2232D/FT2232L are working just as well for SPI access.
why not drop the 'H' altogether? or list the other versions there too (like in "FT2232D/H/L" or similar)?
if you resubmit the patches, could you please merge them? they belong together imho. sorry to be so picky... your work is greatly appreciated!