On Di, 2011-08-30 at 12:33 +0200, Chris Kühl wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Patrick Ohly
> 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).
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.
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.