On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 02:07 +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Am 03.04.2013 01:11 schrieb Kyösti Mälkki:
On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 00:03 +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Based on an idea by Kyösti Mälkki.
Except that you dropped the .private field in the dev_entry struct which made big difference.
Added a .devdata field for this purpose.
That will help.
The if/elseif/else -approach used in ft2232_spi to parse type= command line parameter force a redundant listing of the model strings and you do not list the supported model strings verbatim in flashrom -L output.
AFAICS you didn't rework ft2232_spi either. Admittedly the possible changes for ft2232_spi are really not easy (one USB ID corresponds to two types, the other USB IDs correspond to one type each).
The patch (which never appeared on the mailing list, BTW) was about fixing rayer_spi to list the different pinout models with flashrom -L. It wasn't a solution to any other programmer hardware. With the existing state of review queue, I felt it was better not to suggest global changes. Unfortunately, this dev_entry came up during the discussion.
Anyway, this version should look better.
print_wiki.c is still not fully converted. The output of flashrom -L for non-PCI/USB devices should look better now, but I'd appreciate a review of the changes.
I need a conclusion on patches 3920-3924 first to regain motivation. I received Your comments on #flashrom previously, but since then You posted these partially conflicting and incompatible patches on the list.
I would suggest you keep track of the effort (as in time spent for review, rewrite, discussion) of this dev_entry/rayer_spi change thing. If You finally get someone to rebase them, and You collect new Tested-By lines, evaluate if re-ordering the patchset as You have suggested was worth the added effort or if it just exhausted development resources.
I will probably return to this topic in an average flashrom review feedback time.
Regards, Kyösti