Dear Pavel,
In message 20140711163247.GA14873@amd.pavel.ucw.cz you wrote:
Sorry, but this is not really helpful. "Not set" and "not valid" are different things. "Not valid" might be confusing when none is set at all.
Well, it is what the code checks for.
Also, if I understand correctly, we will now have _two_ error messages ("ethernet address not valid" followed by "could not set ethernet address")? That's not so nice either.
Ok, would it be acceptable to change 'count not set' message to 'could not set or invalid address' and print the address as well?
Print the address - if it is not set? I think we should provide useful error messages. Either the address has not been set, then we should say so, or it is invalid, then we should say that.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk