[flashrom] [PATCH] chipset_enable.c: add a message in the case the chipset enable is untested

Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner at student.tuwien.ac.at
Fri Jul 22 10:05:10 CEST 2011

On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 00:27:49 +0200
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:

> Am 21.07.2011 23:59 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:55:07 +0200
> > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:
> >   
> >> Am 21.07.2011 14:23 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> >>        
> >> The following text would be shorter (2 additional lines), but I'd be
> >> happy to see a patch trimming it down even more to one additional line.
> >>
> >> Found chipset "Intel QS57" (untested). Enabling flash write... OK.
> >> If you are using an up-to-date version of flashrom please email a report
> >> to flashrom at flashrom.org including a verbose (-V) log. Thank you!
> >> This chipset supports the following protocols: FWH, SPI.
> >>     
> > this one prints the message after enabling write... the computer could
> > already be on fire at that time if the chipset enable wrecks havoc!
> >   
> You're right, this is indeed a possible outcome.
> We could downgrade "Enabling flash write... OK" and "This chipset
> supports the following protocols: foo, bar" to msg_pdbg because that
> information is only interesting for debugging anyway. That would also
> allow us to keep the current (svn HEAD) message order and avoid the
> corner case you found.

good idea imo.

> > seriously... i thought it is better to call the chipset enable after the
> > message. and TBH i did not put too much thought into reducing line
> > count, because my message was already way shorter than the chip message.
> > till now i was mainly concerned about character/word count in messages
> > not line count. dos users... well they should get an OS, use redirection
> > or not get in my way :P
> >   
> You'd be surprised how many of our users use DOS, usually because they
> don't know Linux.

not at all. i am aware of that, but that is not my problem but theirs :)
i would even argue that flashrom is a good opportunity for them to get
familiar with unices in the form of livecds, but that is of course not
my decision to make (not until i am leader of the world, that is :)

what i basically tried to say is, that i am glad flashrom is able to
run in dos (more or less), but jumping through too many hoops is not an
option (for me). i will try to factor in their line limit and inability
to scroll (is that still correct for freedos?) in future patches though.

Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

More information about the flashrom mailing list