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

[Stefan Tauner]

On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 02:02:13 +0200
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:

> 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>

Thanks, r1814.

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner