Am 25.07.2011 13:37 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:51:08 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Am 25.07.2011 02:06 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 01:31:06 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Am 25.07.2011 00:32 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
i think our output when we find a chip is much more misleading:
Found chip "Winbond W25X64"
if one tries to use -c "Winbond W25X64" then it will fail, the code
Ouch, yes indeed. Would it make sense to remove the quotes there?
my gut feel tells me that we should handle this consistently everywhere. also removing the quotes completely does not fully remove the source of misunderstanding. the problem is that we call the chip by vendor+model here, but not in the (documentation of) -c parameter. there are various possibilities to mitigate that. the best thing i can think of is rephrasing the "found" message completely and having quotes in the right places like in the following:
Found chip "W25X64" from Winbond or Found a Winbond chip "W25X64" or similar, i.e. combining "chip" with the model/type only and not the vendor (+ quoting the chip name in the case of special characters in the name).
Found Winbond flash chip "W25X64"
above has no such problem. i am certain some termination between multiple chips is needed, even if there are none with spaces in their names. this increases readability of the message a lot imho: Multiple flash chips were detected: ABC/DEF XYZ vs. Multiple flash chips were detected: "ABC/DEF", "XYZ"
Agreed, go ahead. With or without a quote change for the "found chip" output, this is Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
ok thank you. i would like to hear your opinion on the above first though :)
See above.
Regards, Carl-Daniel