On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 03:37:04PM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > On 07.01.2010 11:16, Michael Karcher wrote: > > > > That's what I expected, and that's why I didn't commit yet. I won't > > commit until you and Carl-Daniel agree on the necessity of providing > > which string to match, although I slightly prefer the explicit > > specification of the string to match. > > > > The explicit string match has the advantage of being extensible. More below. > > > Looking at the Asus P5A example (I know that this board is severly > > outdated, which might make this point less strong) there are no > > subsystem IDs at all in it. So when we start looking for DMI info we > > don't have any indication yet that we are on an Asus board. If we really > > have good subsystem IDs, we don't need DMI. > > Yes. And in case we ever want to match two strings at once, the "bp:^A8V > MX$" can be extended easily to > "bvbp:^ASUS$:^A8V MX$" without changing any structs at all. Especially > in the case where there is no usable PCI subsystem ID (board vendor not > present) this may come handy. I'd wait for such an extension until we > really desperately need it, though.
>From some previous mail: >> I don't think we need the "any:" prefix (I think I would have written it >> as "??:") at all. The match-any policy was in just to shorten the table >> entry. > > This whole thing is why i was initially very weary of *^$ in these > strings. People end up trying to go beyond when they see something like > that, it's something psychological that i have seen at play more often > in these cases. Luc Verhaegen. _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
