on 18/04/2012 11:30 Jean Delvare said the following: > Hi Andriy, > > On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:03:16 +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 17/04/2012 14:18 Jean Delvare said the following: >>> I am attaching two patches, one for DDR2, one for DDR3, please give >>> them a try. >> >> Thanks a lot! >> I am able to test only the DDR2 part at the moment. >> With the patch I am getting the following >> Module Configuration Type Data ECC >> for these modules: http://www.valueram.com/datasheets/kvr800d2e5_2g.pdf >> >> For some definitely non-ECC modules I get the expected >> Module Configuration Type No Parity > > Thanks for the report, I've applied both patches. Thank you! >> P.S. >> I've noticed that the "Decoding EEPROM" message is printed with >> $dimm[$current]->{eeprom} when $opt_side_by_side is true but it is printed with >> $dimm[$current]->{file} in the other case. Not sure if this is on purpose. > > I think it is on purpose. ->{file} contains the full path so it is > rather long, ->{eeprom} only contains the file name so it is much > shorter. The full path would make side-by-side output very wide, that > wouldn't be convenient, that's why the short name is used in this > output mode. In legacy output mode, the long name fits. > > We _could_ use the short name in legacy output mode, as the long name > doesn't necessarily add a lot of value. I think I tried to leave the > legacy output unchanged when implementing the side-by-side output, to > avoid any regression in case someone was parsing the output of > decode-dimms. If you believe it would be better to always use the short > name, we could do that, this may even allow for a small code clean-up. I don't have any strong opinion about this. I see pros and contras for both choices and I can not make up my mind :) -- Andriy Gapon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
