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

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Am 01.06.2014 00:48 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 00:30:02 +0200
> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> 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 <stefan.tauner at alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
>> 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 <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/