do_tune_freq_results_message() produces confusing verbose

[guruofquality]

For an example, I have added some extra prints to the following function to see what is going on:
https://github.com/EttusResearch/uhd/blob/master/host/lib/usrp/multi_usrp.cpp#L72

2014-10-28 13:48:23 : -- target_freq = 1.878e+09
2014-10-28 13:48:23 : -- clipped_target_freq = 1.878e+09
2014-10-28 13:48:23 : -- actual_freq = 1.878e+09
2014-10-28 13:48:23 : -- target_rf_freq = 1.878e+09
2014-10-28 13:48:23 : -- actual_rf_freq = 1.878e+09
2014-10-28 13:48:23 : -- target_dsp_freq = -0.357628
2014-10-28 13:48:23 : -- actual_dsp_freq = -0.357162
2014-10-28 13:48:23 : -- requested_freq_success = 1
2014-10-28 13:48:23 : -- target_freq_success = 1
2014-10-28 13:48:23 : -- rf_lo_tune_success = 0
2014-10-28 13:48:23 : -- dsp_tune_success = 1
2014-10-28 13:48:23 : -- Tune Request: 1878.000000 MHz
--   The RF LO does not support the requested frequency:
--     Requested LO Frequency: 1878.000000 MHz
--     RF LO Result: 1878.000000 MHz
--   Attempted to use the DSP to reach the requested frequency:
--     Desired DSP Frequency: -0.000000 MHz
--     DSP Result: -0.000000 MHz
--   Successfully tuned to 1878.000000 MHz
-- 

First problem, the prints from "The RF LO does not support the requested frequency" does not show any precision about the frequencies in question. So the message just looks kind of confusing.

Second problem. It seems that this message is triggered because rf_lo_tune_success is false, which is caused by a tune error of a fraction of a Hz. I thought that the expected behaviour of automatic tuning was to tune the frontend, and then compensate for the error with the DSP. So I wouldnt expect that a small frontend precision error would cause this print.

Anyway, nothing is behaving incorrectly. We just did not expect the verbose, and found it confusing.

[bhilburn]

Hi @guruofquality -

We added those as extra status messages in an attempt to provide useful information to users. We have had a few users comment that they are confusing, though, so we will revisit how / when they are used. I'm going to pull this in as an internal bug so that we can track it properly. Thanks!

Cheers,
Ben