[flashrom] [PATCH] flashrom 0.9.2

[Sean Nelson]

On 4/28/10 5:59 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 30.03.2010 05:25, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>    
>> No, 0.9.2 is not yet out.
>> This patch should be committed in r999 so that the 0.9.2 tag in svn will
>> be r1000.
>>
>>      
> This goal is now unreachable. I hope we can at least commit the makefile
> change for 0.9.2 in r1000, the tag will be at least r1001.
>
>
>    
>> Patches I want to get in before 0.9.2:
>>
>> AT49F002(N)(T) eraseblock fix (needs re-review due to datasheet
>> contradictions)
>> http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/833/
>>
>> drkaiser: MEM BAR fixes (needs update to fix gfxnvidia MEM BAR as well)
>> http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/1077/
>>
>> msg_* conversions (two patches, preferably as one commit, needs review)
>> http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/1167/
>> http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/1166/
>>
>> Suggestions for other patches? If I overlooked any of your patches, I'm
>> sorry. Feel free to point me to them and/or push them for inclusion.
>>
>>      
> The patch below is a bit heavy, but I think a substantial part of it
> (especially the man page stuff) is really needed to release 0.9.2
> without being ashamed of it.
>
> While I'd prefer to have all of the changes below in 0.9.2, I will
> listen to reviews and kill/change parts of this patch where needed.
>
> One thing still needs to be fixed, though. Do we want to print the
> command line arguments
> 1. always before parsing them regardless of verbosity (great for
> debugging, but clutters the output needlessly)
> 2. only after parsing them and only in verbose mode
> 3. only after parsing them regardless of verbosity
> 4. never
> The option "before parsing, but only in verbose mode" does not exist
> because we have to parse them to know if the user requested verbose mode.
>
> Changelog:
> Fix assorted documentation and frontend bugs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger<c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
>
> Index: flashrom-0.9.2/Makefile
> ===================================================================
> --- flashrom-0.9.2/Makefile	(revision 996)
> +++ flashrom-0.9.2/Makefile	(working copy)
> @@ -71,9 +71,9 @@
>   # of the checked out flashrom files.
>   # Note to packagers: Any tree exported with "make export" or "make tarball"
>   # will not require subversion. The downloadable snapshots are already exported.
> -SVNVERSION := $(shell LC_ALL=C svnversion -cn . | sed -e "s/.*://" -e "s/\([0-9]*\).*/\1/" | grep "[0-9]" || LC_ALL=C svn info . | grep ^Revision | sed "s/.*[[:blank:]]\+\([0-9]*\)[^0-9]*/\1/" | grep "[0-9]" || echo unknown)
> +SVNVERSION := $(shell LC_ALL=C svnversion -cn . 2>/dev/null | sed -e "s/.*://" -e "s/\([0-9]*\).*/\1/" | grep "[0-9]" || LC_ALL=C svn info . 2>/dev/null | awk '/^Revision:/ {print $2 }' | grep "[0-9]" || LC_ALL=C git svn info . 2>/dev/null | awk '/^Revision:/ {print $2 }' | grep "[0-9]" || echo unknown)
>    
git svn info somehow prints: "Revision: 996" instead of "996".
>
> -RELEASE := 0.9.1
> +RELEASE := 0.9.2
>   VERSION := $(RELEASE)-r$(SVNVERSION)
>   RELEASENAME ?= $(VERSION)
>
>
> Index: flashrom-0.9.2/flashrom.c
> ===================================================================
> --- flashrom-0.9.2/flashrom.c	(revision 996)
> +++ flashrom-0.9.2/flashrom.c	(working copy)
> @@ -1187,6 +1187,12 @@
>   	print_sysinfo();
>   }
>
> +void print_banner(void)
> +{
> +	printf("flashrom is free software, get the source code at "
>    
should be msg_ginfo() ?
> +	       "http://www.flashrom.org\n");
> +}
> +
>   int selfcheck(void)
>   {
>   	int ret = 0;
> @@ -1247,13 +1253,19 @@
>   			printf("\n");
>    
this will conflict with my patch once it's committed
>   		}
>   		/* FIXME: This message is designed towards CLI users. */
> -		printf("Please email a report to flashrom at flashrom.org if any "
>    
patch conflict
> -		       "of the above operations\nwork correctly for you with "
> -		       "this flash part. Please include the flashrom\noutput "
> -		       "with the additional -V option for all operations you "
> -		       "tested (-V, -rV,\n-wV, -EV), and mention which "
> -		       "mainboard or programmer you tested.\nThanks for your "
> -		       "help!\n===\n");
> +		printf("The test status of this chip may have been updated in "
>    
should be msg_cinfo()?
> +		       "the latest development\n"
> +		       "version of flashrom. If you are running the latest "
> +		       "development version,\n"
> +		       "please email a report to flashrom at flashrom.org if any "
> +		       "of the above operations\n"
> +		       "work correctly for you with this flash part. Please "
> +		       "include the flashrom\n"
> +		       "output with the additional -V option for all "
> +		       "operations you tested (-V, -Vr,\n"
> +		       "-Vw, -VE), and mention which mainboard or programmer "
> +		       "you tested.\n"
> +		       "Thanks for your help!\n===\n");
>   	}
>   }
>
>
>
>    
Once we get all this sorted, its

Acked-by: Sean Nelson <audiohacked at gmail.com>