On 07.01.2010 15:43, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 03:29:27PM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> On 07.01.2010 11:13, Luc Verhaegen wrote: >> >>> I wouldn't use any word related to optimal in relationship to the board >>> enable table. >>> >>> >> Heh. I tried to be polite. >> > > I was trying to be slightly amusing.
:-) >> The enum will clutter up the table a lot more than 3 chars at the >> beginning of the DMI string, so I'd rather avoid it. >> > > The prefix is A Bad Thing. As shown before, a typo is easily made, and > we cannot check for it. Have you seen the selfcheck() function which is called on startup? I have patches which extend it a bit to check for eraseblock definition correctness, and it could easily check for string correctness on startup as well. >>> The matching functions is also still on my todo list. Splitting the >>> matching functions from two (named/coreboot, pciid) into three >>> (coreboot, named, pciid), to tighten up the board enable table. >>> >> Sorry, -ENOPARSE. >> > > This is the board enable matching tightening up i have been talking > about for half a year or so now. > Ah OK. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- Developer quote of the year: "We are juggling too many chainsaws and flaming arrows and tigers." _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
