Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Manpage improvements.

[Bernd Blaauw]

Op 15-2-2012 16:23, Stefan Tauner schreef:
> Also, rephrase the documention related to laptops completely to make it
> less redundant and more informative.
> Document the laptop=this_is_not_a_laptop internal programmer parameter

Whatever happened to flashrom's semi-dependency on DMIDECODE?
I thought flashrom implemented its own dmi-calls since 0.9.4, but trying 
Idwer's DOS-port (rev1452) and not having DMIDECOD.EXE (yep, 8.3 naming, 
sorry) all I end up with in VMware/FreeDOS is a "hey can't identify 
anything, so this must be a laptop..if not, please override".

Overriding still produces the same 'please override' output followed by 
a message that you're overriding, and continues. Ofcourse no single 
emulation platform seems to have a flashrom anyway, so stuff happily aborts.

I guess flashrom could at least continue to try reading without needing 
an override. Erasing and writing ofcourse do require overrides if 
anything is uncertain in advance.

[PATCH] Manpage improvements.

[Stefan Tauner]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:37:31 +0100
Bernd Blaauw  wrote:
> Op 15-2-2012 16:23, Stefan Tauner schreef:
> > Also, rephrase the documention related to laptops completely to make it
> > less redundant and more informative.
> > Document the laptop=this_is_not_a_laptop internal programmer parameter
>
> Whatever happened to flashrom's semi-dependency on DMIDECODE?
> I thought flashrom implemented its own dmi-calls since 0.9.4,

sadly not, feel free to review my patch ;)
http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/3356/
> but trying 
> Idwer's DOS-port (rev1452) and not having DMIDECOD.EXE (yep, 8.3 naming, 
> sorry) all I end up with in VMware/FreeDOS is a "hey can't identify 
> anything, so this must be a laptop..if not, please override".

more like "it *may* be a laptop, please confirm it is not"
> Overriding still produces the same 'please override' output followed by 
> a message that you're overriding, and continues. Ofcourse no single 
> emulation platform seems to have a flashrom anyway, so stuff happily aborts.

seems ok to me?
> I guess flashrom could at least continue to try reading without needing 
> an override. Erasing and writing ofcourse do require overrides if 
> anything is uncertain in advance.

and that guess is wrong. i have been told that *any* unexpected (by the
EC) flash access could lead to annoyances (as described in more detail
now in the manpage...) and that's the reason why we introduce such
seemingly stupid stuff.