Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Add default arguments for the default programmer (only).

[Stefan Tauner]

On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 02:02:13 +0200
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger  wrote:
> Am 01.06.2014 00:48 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> > On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 00:30:02 +0200
> > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger  wrote:
> > > Am 30.05.2014 00:52 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> > > > This code exists thanks to food for thought from Urja Rannikko.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner
> > >
> > > Interesting, to say the least. The default parameter only applies if -p
> > > is not specified at all, so there are no unexpected side effects. The
> > > only complaint I have (except the question "who would want to use that")
> > > is that you can run
> > > make CONFIG_DEFAULT_PROGRAMMER_ARGS="foobar"
> > > without having to specify CONFIG_DEFAULT_PROGRAMMER as well.
> > > CONFIG_DEFAULT_PROGRAMMER_ARGS won't have any effect in that case during
> > > runtime, but that might surprise someone who specified it.
> > >
> > > Hm. Maybe I should really ask who would want to use that... it's
> > > obviously not a feature distributions would use, although it seems some
> > > of them use CONFIG_DEFAULT_PROGRAMMER to keep the behavoir unchanged
> > > compared to previous releases.
> > >
> > > Not opposed to it, but not really convinced either.
> >
> > Urja is using a variation of this patch for about half a year. The
> > rationale is quite strong IMHO: If you want to use a default programmer
> > and this programmer requires some parameters (and always the same
> > parameters), then the default programmer alone does not help you much:
> > you can't specify the options without specifying the programmer too!
> > So actually it does really make sense for pretty much everyone that
> > uses the default programmer (other than those using the default
> > programmer to work around our -p internal change). Well, that's
> > probably Urja alone for now :)
> >
> > Regarding your complaint of PROG_ARGS w/o PROG... I don't think that
> > justifies more code, but if you insist I can add a check for that, that
> > warns if the ARGS are set but the PROG is still INVALID.
>
> You supplied a convincing explanation, you get an
> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

Thanks, r1814.