[flashrom] [PATCH] fix output for multiple found flash chips

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Am 25.07.2011 13:37 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:51:08 +0200
> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:
>   
>> Am 25.07.2011 02:06 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
>>     
>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 01:31:06 +0200
>>> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Am 25.07.2011 00:32 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> i think our output when we find a chip is much more misleading:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Found chip "Winbond W25X64"
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> if one tries to use -c "Winbond W25X64" then it will fail, the code
>>>       
>> Ouch, yes indeed. Would it make sense to remove the quotes there?
>>     
> my gut feel tells me that we should handle this consistently everywhere.
> also removing the quotes completely does not fully remove the source of
> misunderstanding.
> the problem is that we call the chip by vendor+model here, but not in
> the (documentation of) -c parameter. there are various possibilities to
> mitigate that. the best thing i can think of is rephrasing the "found"
> message completely and having quotes in the right places like in the
> following:
>
> Found chip "W25X64" from Winbond
> or
> Found a Winbond chip "W25X64"
> or similar, i.e. combining "chip" with the model/type only and not the
> vendor (+ quoting the chip name in the case of special characters in
> the name).
>   

Found Winbond flash chip "W25X64"


>>> above has no such problem. i am certain some termination between
>>> multiple chips is needed, even if there are none with spaces in their
>>> names. this increases readability of the message a lot imho:
>>> Multiple flash chips were detected: ABC/DEF XYZ
>>> vs.
>>> Multiple flash chips were detected: "ABC/DEF", "XYZ"
>>>   
>>>       
>> Agreed, go ahead. With or without a quote change for the "found chip"
>> output, this is
>> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
>>     
> ok thank you. i would like to hear your opinion on the above first
> though :)
>   

See above.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

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