On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:03:00 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Am 15.02.2012 14:11 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:55:38 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Now if something is outside the scope of flashrom, should flashrom care at all?
depends... i dont think of "the scope" as a clearly bounded area. everything related to flash chips is somewhat in its scope (else we would not talk about this), heck we even discussed EEPROM handling multiple times... we dont need to support any and all feature found in any flash chip out there, but we should integrate knowledge and code for the more common ones that might be useful, if there is someone willing to provide them (and maintain them if necessary).
If we target non-flash EEPROMs, we might as well support OTP. I'd say such support is post-1.0 material, though (and no, I don't plan to delay flashrom 1.0 like Wine 1.0 was delayed).
no, you will tell us that you may tag 1.0 next week - every week :P
Do we warn if a chip has a readonly serial number? That means the chip can't be cloned. People who care about OTP for clonability reasons probably care about other readonly contents as well. OTOH, other people who don't use the OTP at all (for them, OTP is just an accidental feature of a cheap flash chip) don't want to be bothered by yet another line of output from flashrom which has no relevancy for them.
do you agree to lowering the verbosity of the whole message to dbg level?
Yes.
done and committed in r1493, one less yay!