On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> wrote:
On Di, 2011-08-30 at 12:33 +0200, Chris Kühl wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mo, 2011-08-29 at 15:12 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> >> > 1) In the case that we have no PnPInformation info we have...
> >> >
> >> > deviceName = User-modifiable name
> >> > peerName = User-modifiable name
> >> Better leave the peerName unset. It's semantic will be "we know for
> >> that this device is a "<vendor>[ <product>]".
> > You decided to not implement it like this, did you?
> That was an oversight. Attached, you'll find updated patch.
Thanks, merged. When writing the API docs for it I got unhappy about the
overloading of peerName that I had suggested earlier and ended up
renaming the property. See attached patch (from master).
Great. On vacation now but glad to see that get in and completed.
> I agree that there is a need to be able for the client code to know
> that they have reliable info or not. Setting peerName to empty is a
> good way to do that.
Or better, don't even send it.
> I've also attached a n updated patch for the script. Just adds a
> header with copyright and license info.
I'll make publish the blog post within the next couple days.