June 2021 - flashrom-gerrit - mail.coreboot.org

Change in flashrom[master]: dediprog: Init-shutdown test for dediprog
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 29 Jun '21

29 Jun '21

Anastasia Klimchuk has uploaded this change for review. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55934 ) Change subject: dediprog: Init-shutdown test for dediprog ...................................................................... dediprog: Init-shutdown test for dediprog This patch adds mocks for libusb functions. To avoid dependency on libusb.h all libusb-specific pointers are replaced with void*. Real libusb handles/ctx/etc are not needed for tests, and real libusb functions are never called in tests anyway. Cmocka wraps work with this without complaints. BUG=b:181803212 TEST=builds and ninja test Change-Id: I38508dfb6d7c24d42522f22fcae0c5e410c5f7ea Signed-off-by: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> --- M tests/init_shutdown.c M tests/io_mock.h M tests/meson.build M tests/tests.c M tests/tests.h 5 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) git pull ssh://review.coreboot.org:29418/flashrom refs/changes/34/55934/1 diff --git a/tests/init_shutdown.c b/tests/init_shutdown.c index 48448f8..894a517 100644 --- a/tests/init_shutdown.c +++ b/tests/init_shutdown.c @@ -85,6 +85,41 @@ #endif } +int dediprog_libusb_control_transfer(void *state, + void *devh, + uint8_t bmRequestType, + uint8_t bRequest, + uint16_t wValue, + uint16_t wIndex, + unsigned char *data, + uint16_t wLength, + unsigned int timeout) +{ + if (bRequest == 0x08 /* dediprog_cmds CMD_READ_PROG_INFO */) { + /* Provide dediprog Device String into data buffer */ + memcpy(data, "SF600 V:7.2.2 ", wLength); + } + return wLength; +} + +void dediprog_init_and_shutdown_test_success(void **state) +{ +#if CONFIG_DEDIPROG == 1 + /* Manual voltage setting */ + const struct io_mock dediprog_io = { + .libusb_control_transfer = dediprog_libusb_control_transfer, + }; + + io_mock_register(&dediprog_io); + + run_lifecycle(state, &programmer_dediprog, "voltage=3.5V"); + + io_mock_register(NULL); +#else + skip(); +#endif +} + struct ene_lpc_io_state { unsigned char outb_val; int pause_cmd; diff --git a/tests/io_mock.h b/tests/io_mock.h index 69045a2..01d0ad2 100644 --- a/tests/io_mock.h +++ b/tests/io_mock.h @@ -42,6 +42,23 @@ void (*outl)(void *state, unsigned int value, unsigned short port); unsigned int (*inl)(void *state, unsigned short port); + + /* USB I/O */ + /* + * libusb_device_handle* replaced with void* to avoid dependency on libusb + * in tests (libusb may not be supported, but tests should not break). + * For mocking purposes it is all fine, and real libusb functions are never + * called in tests anyway. + */ + int (*libusb_control_transfer)(void *state, + void *devh, + uint8_t bmRequestType, + uint8_t bRequest, + uint16_t wValue, + uint16_t wIndex, + unsigned char *data, + uint16_t wLength, + unsigned int timeout); }; void io_mock_register(const struct io_mock *io); diff --git a/tests/meson.build b/tests/meson.build index 852fd4c..a18bc45 100644 --- a/tests/meson.build +++ b/tests/meson.build @@ -39,6 +39,13 @@ '-Wl,--wrap=test_inw', '-Wl,--wrap=test_outl', '-Wl,--wrap=test_inl', + '-Wl,--wrap=usb_dev_get_by_vid_pid_number', + '-Wl,--wrap=libusb_set_configuration', + '-Wl,--wrap=libusb_claim_interface', + '-Wl,--wrap=libusb_control_transfer', + '-Wl,--wrap=libusb_release_interface', + '-Wl,--wrap=libusb_close', + '-Wl,--wrap=libusb_exit', '-Wl,--gc-sections', ] diff --git a/tests/tests.c b/tests/tests.c index 44bbbdb..eef6374 100644 --- a/tests/tests.c +++ b/tests/tests.c @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ #include <stdio.h> #include <stdint.h> +#include <string.h> /* redefinitions/wrapping */ #define LOG_ME printf("%s is called\n", __func__) @@ -88,45 +89,97 @@ return 0; } -void __wrap_test_outb(unsigned char value, unsigned short port) { +void __wrap_test_outb(unsigned char value, unsigned short port) +{ /* LOG_ME; */ if (current_io && current_io->outb) current_io->outb(current_io->state, value, port); } -unsigned char __wrap_test_inb(unsigned short port) { +unsigned char __wrap_test_inb(unsigned short port) +{ /* LOG_ME; */ if (current_io && current_io->inb) return current_io->inb(current_io->state, port); return 0; } -void __wrap_test_outw(unsigned short value, unsigned short port) { +void __wrap_test_outw(unsigned short value, unsigned short port) +{ /* LOG_ME; */ if (current_io && current_io->outw) current_io->outw(current_io->state, value, port); } -unsigned short __wrap_test_inw(unsigned short port) { +unsigned short __wrap_test_inw(unsigned short port) +{ /* LOG_ME; */ if (current_io && current_io->inw) return current_io->inw(current_io->state, port); return 0; } -void __wrap_test_outl(unsigned int value, unsigned short port) { +void __wrap_test_outl(unsigned int value, unsigned short port) +{ /* LOG_ME; */ if (current_io && current_io->outl) current_io->outl(current_io->state, value, port); } -unsigned int __wrap_test_inl(unsigned short port) { +unsigned int __wrap_test_inl(unsigned short port) +{ /* LOG_ME; */ if (current_io && current_io->inl) return current_io->inl(current_io->state, port); return 0; } +void *__wrap_usb_dev_get_by_vid_pid_number( + void *usb_ctx, uint16_t vid, uint16_t pid, unsigned int num) +{ + LOG_ME; + return (void *)2021; +} + +int __wrap_libusb_set_configuration(void *devh, int config) +{ + LOG_ME; + return 0; +} + +int __wrap_libusb_claim_interface(void *devh, int interface_number) +{ + LOG_ME; + return 0; +} + +int __wrap_libusb_control_transfer(void *devh, uint8_t bmRequestType, + uint8_t bRequest, uint16_t wValue, uint16_t wIndex, unsigned char *data, + uint16_t wLength, unsigned int timeout) +{ + LOG_ME; + if (current_io && current_io->libusb_control_transfer) + return current_io->libusb_control_transfer(current_io->state, + devh, bmRequestType, bRequest, wValue, wIndex, data, wLength, timeout); + return 0; +} + +int __wrap_libusb_release_interface(void *devh, int interface_number) +{ + LOG_ME; + return 0; +} + +void __wrap_libusb_close(void *devh) +{ + LOG_ME; +} + +void __wrap_libusb_exit(void *ctx) +{ + LOG_ME; +} + int main(void) { int ret = 0; @@ -166,6 +219,7 @@ const struct CMUnitTest init_shutdown_tests[] = { cmocka_unit_test(dummy_init_and_shutdown_test_success), cmocka_unit_test(mec1308_init_and_shutdown_test_success), + cmocka_unit_test(dediprog_init_and_shutdown_test_success), cmocka_unit_test(ene_lpc_init_and_shutdown_test_success), cmocka_unit_test(linux_spi_init_and_shutdown_test_success), }; diff --git a/tests/tests.h b/tests/tests.h index da4f4a9..2007695 100644 --- a/tests/tests.h +++ b/tests/tests.h @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ /* init_shutdown.c */ void dummy_init_and_shutdown_test_success(void **state); void mec1308_init_and_shutdown_test_success(void **state); +void dediprog_init_and_shutdown_test_success(void **state); void ene_lpc_init_and_shutdown_test_success(void **state); void linux_spi_init_and_shutdown_test_success(void **state); -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55934 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I38508dfb6d7c24d42522f22fcae0c5e410c5f7ea Gerrit-Change-Number: 55934 Gerrit-PatchSet: 1 Gerrit-Owner: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-MessageType: newchange

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: Accept shutdown function in register_master
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 29 Jun '21

29 Jun '21

Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber, Edward O'Callaghan, Angel Pons. Anastasia Klimchuk has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/51761 ) Change subject: Accept shutdown function in register_master ...................................................................... Patch Set 3: (1 comment) Patchset: PS3: Returning back to this, finally! :) This was a while ago, and half of that is already done (data), only shutdown function left. I can rebase this, or another idea I wanted to discuss: CB:55932 which does not need to add one more argument to functions. -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/51761 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I1704ddafc56e1393613a7ea077e40c36911cfac8 Gerrit-Change-Number: 51761 Gerrit-PatchSet: 3 Gerrit-Owner: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-CC: Nikolai Artemiev <nartemiev(a)google.com> Gerrit-CC: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org> Gerrit-CC: Sam McNally <sammc(a)google.com> Gerrit-Attention: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Attention: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Attention: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:09:08 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No Gerrit-MessageType: comment

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: [RFC] spi_master: Add shutdown function in spi_master struct
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 29 Jun '21

29 Jun '21

Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber, Edward O'Callaghan, Angel Pons. Anastasia Klimchuk has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55932 ) Change subject: [RFC] spi_master: Add shutdown function in spi_master struct ...................................................................... Patch Set 1: (1 comment) Patchset: PS1: I was thinking about adding a shutdown function into one of the structs for a while (I mean into spi_master struct or programmer_entry). I wasn't sure which one of the structs is the right place for the shutdown function, and even more, why there are two structs describing the same thing? Especially now, when both structs are in the same file. Both in the same file, however they are separate and cannot share information between each other. Programmer_entry has init function, so I was thinking of adding a shutdown there as well. But then I cannot access it from register_spi_master. Alternatively, I thought to add `register_shutdown(programmer->shutdown, data)` after flashrom.c#159, but data is not available on that level. Data is needed for shutdown, but also data is something that is re-created for every new run. With that, maybe adding shutdown into spi_master is ok? Data is there already. Another thing I don't know, why data is added into spi/par/opaque master struct (3 times), and not in registered_master struct. I added shutdown function where the data is. -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55932 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I2dc80dceca2f8204bcd0dad1f51753d7e79f1af5 Gerrit-Change-Number: 55932 Gerrit-PatchSet: 1 Gerrit-Owner: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-CC: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org> Gerrit-Attention: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Attention: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Attention: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:08:14 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No Gerrit-MessageType: comment

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: [RFC] spi_master: Add shutdown function in spi_master struct
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 29 Jun '21

29 Jun '21

Anastasia Klimchuk has uploaded this change for review. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55932 ) Change subject: [RFC] spi_master: Add shutdown function in spi_master struct ...................................................................... [RFC] spi_master: Add shutdown function in spi_master struct With this, register_spi_master can take care of register_shutdown as well, and every spi master only needs to call register_spi_master instead of calling both register_spi_master and register_shutdown. This is alternative approach to CB:51761 which does not require adding another argument to register_spi_master. Testing: when I comment out free(data) in linux_spi_shutdown, test fails with error ../linux_spi.c:235: note: block 0x55a4db276510 allocated here ERROR: linux_spi_init_and_shutdown_test_success leaked 1 block(s) Means, shutdown function is invoked. Same for dummy: comment out free(data) in shutdown. It is also caught in test ../dummyflasher.c:949: note: block 0x55e0727a6e40 allocated here ERROR: dummy_init_and_shutdown_test_success leaked 1 block(s) Means, shutdown function is invoked even for drivers with "old" API (so, transition from old to new is not breaking anything). Change-Id: I2dc80dceca2f8204bcd0dad1f51753d7e79f1af5 Signed-off-by: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> --- M linux_spi.c M programmer.h M spi.c 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) git pull ssh://review.coreboot.org:29418/flashrom refs/changes/32/55932/1 diff --git a/linux_spi.c b/linux_spi.c index 46779a0..16a83af 100644 --- a/linux_spi.c +++ b/linux_spi.c @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ .read = linux_spi_read, .write_256 = linux_spi_write_256, .write_aai = default_spi_write_aai, + .shutdown = linux_spi_shutdown, }; /* Read max buffer size from sysfs, or use page size as fallback. */ @@ -239,11 +240,8 @@ spi_data->fd = fd; spi_data->max_kernel_buf_size = max_kernel_buf_size; - if (register_shutdown(linux_spi_shutdown, spi_data)) { - free(spi_data); - goto init_err; - } - register_spi_master(&spi_master_linux, spi_data); + if (register_spi_master(&spi_master_linux, spi_data)) + return 1; /* core does cleanup */ return 0; init_err: diff --git a/programmer.h b/programmer.h index 95e2cda..ec55987 100644 --- a/programmer.h +++ b/programmer.h @@ -356,6 +356,7 @@ int (*read)(struct flashctx *flash, uint8_t *buf, unsigned int start, unsigned int len); int (*write_256)(struct flashctx *flash, const uint8_t *buf, unsigned int start, unsigned int len); int (*write_aai)(struct flashctx *flash, const uint8_t *buf, unsigned int start, unsigned int len); + int (*shutdown)(void *data); void *data; }; diff --git a/spi.c b/spi.c index 4ac3914..99d036e 100644 --- a/spi.c +++ b/spi.c @@ -135,6 +135,12 @@ { struct registered_master rmst = {0}; + if (mst->shutdown) + if (register_shutdown(mst->shutdown, data)) { + mst->shutdown(data); /* cleanup */ + return 1; + } + if (!mst->write_aai || !mst->write_256 || !mst->read || !mst->command || !mst->multicommand || ((mst->command == default_spi_send_command) && -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55932 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I2dc80dceca2f8204bcd0dad1f51753d7e79f1af5 Gerrit-Change-Number: 55932 Gerrit-PatchSet: 1 Gerrit-Owner: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-MessageType: newchange

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: util: Name udev-rules file accordingly
by Paul Menzel (Code Review) 29 Jun '21

29 Jun '21

Attention is currently required from: Felix Singer. Paul Menzel has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55866 ) Change subject: util: Name udev-rules file accordingly ...................................................................... Patch Set 4: (2 comments) Commit Message: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55866/comment/8f00046e_17d8f550 PS1, Line 9: Rename `z60_flashrom.rules` to `flashrom_udev.rules`. > They have to read the file first anyway. Not every distro uses the same […] As upstream systemd/udev uses ordering, I think that is the way to do it. There is no reason specified, why all distributions already packaging flashrom have to adapt their packaging scripts to use the new name. The commit message does not say, why the new name is better, and I still do not see a reason. [1]: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/tree/main/rules.d Commit Message: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55866/comment/eb92b1c3_c0c12144 PS4, Line 7: accordingly Just saw this now. This is missing something. “accordingly” to what? -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55866 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I1e7918d3121d89d3c388745e433a3a413eac0e21 Gerrit-Change-Number: 55866 Gerrit-PatchSet: 4 Gerrit-Owner: Felix Singer <felixsinger(a)posteo.net> Gerrit-Reviewer: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-CC: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org> Gerrit-Attention: Felix Singer <felixsinger(a)posteo.net> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 22:40:58 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No Comment-In-Reply-To: Felix Singer <felixsinger(a)posteo.net> Comment-In-Reply-To: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Comment-In-Reply-To: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org> Gerrit-MessageType: comment

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: dediprog: Separate shutdown from failed init cleanup
by Nico Huber (Code Review) 28 Jun '21

28 Jun '21

Attention is currently required from: Edward O'Callaghan, Anastasia Klimchuk. Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55887 ) Change subject: dediprog: Separate shutdown from failed init cleanup ...................................................................... Patch Set 1: Code-Review+1 (1 comment) Patchset: PS1: > This is actually *the last one* which unlocks API change for register_shutdown! Grats! -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55887 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I3273da907614a042d50090338c337dfd64695354 Gerrit-Change-Number: 55887 Gerrit-PatchSet: 1 Gerrit-Owner: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-Attention: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Attention: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 20:12:13 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: Yes Comment-In-Reply-To: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-MessageType: comment

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: util: Name udev-rules file accordingly
by Nico Huber (Code Review) 28 Jun '21

28 Jun '21

Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55866 ) Change subject: util: Name udev-rules file accordingly ...................................................................... Patch Set 4: (1 comment) Commit Message: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55866/comment/73f04446_ae87372b PS1, Line 9: Rename `z60_flashrom.rules` to `flashrom_udev.rules`. > If a distro uses any ordering concept (some also don't), then package maintainers _have_ to deal wit […] They have to read the file first anyway. Not every distro uses the same group names for instance. -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55866 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I1e7918d3121d89d3c388745e433a3a413eac0e21 Gerrit-Change-Number: 55866 Gerrit-PatchSet: 4 Gerrit-Owner: Felix Singer <felixsinger(a)posteo.net> Gerrit-Reviewer: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-CC: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 16:48:40 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No Comment-In-Reply-To: Felix Singer <felixsinger(a)posteo.net> Comment-In-Reply-To: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Comment-In-Reply-To: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org> Gerrit-MessageType: comment

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: util: Name udev-rules file accordingly
by Angel Pons (Code Review) 28 Jun '21

28 Jun '21

Angel Pons has submitted this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55866 ) Change subject: util: Name udev-rules file accordingly ...................................................................... util: Name udev-rules file accordingly Rename `z60_flashrom.rules` to `flashrom_udev.rules`. Change-Id: I1e7918d3121d89d3c388745e433a3a413eac0e21 Signed-off-by: Felix Singer <felixsinger(a)posteo.net> Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55866 Reviewed-by: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> --- R util/flashrom_udev.rules 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) Approvals: build bot (Jenkins): Verified Nico Huber: Looks good to me, approved Angel Pons: Looks good to me, approved diff --git a/util/z60_flashrom.rules b/util/flashrom_udev.rules similarity index 100% rename from util/z60_flashrom.rules rename to util/flashrom_udev.rules -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55866 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I1e7918d3121d89d3c388745e433a3a413eac0e21 Gerrit-Change-Number: 55866 Gerrit-PatchSet: 4 Gerrit-Owner: Felix Singer <felixsinger(a)posteo.net> Gerrit-Reviewer: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-CC: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org> Gerrit-MessageType: merged

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: util: Name udev-rules file accordingly
by Angel Pons (Code Review) 28 Jun '21

28 Jun '21

Attention is currently required from: Felix Singer, Nico Huber, Paul Menzel. Angel Pons has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55866 ) Change subject: util: Name udev-rules file accordingly ...................................................................... Patch Set 3: Code-Review+2 -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55866 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I1e7918d3121d89d3c388745e433a3a413eac0e21 Gerrit-Change-Number: 55866 Gerrit-PatchSet: 3 Gerrit-Owner: Felix Singer <felixsinger(a)posteo.net> Gerrit-Reviewer: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-CC: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org> Gerrit-Attention: Felix Singer <felixsinger(a)posteo.net> Gerrit-Attention: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Attention: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 16:16:11 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: No Gerrit-Has-Labels: Yes Gerrit-MessageType: comment

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: [DRAFT] Split Makefile
by Angel Pons (Code Review) 28 Jun '21

28 Jun '21

Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber. Angel Pons has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55882 ) Change subject: [DRAFT] Split Makefile ...................................................................... Patch Set 2: Code-Review+1 -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55882 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I2fa86f8b686f61f09a8a5c929587ea71f3e59e78 Gerrit-Change-Number: 55882 Gerrit-PatchSet: 2 Gerrit-Owner: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-CC: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org> Gerrit-Attention: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 16:13:24 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: No Gerrit-Has-Labels: Yes Gerrit-MessageType: comment

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

flashrom-gerrit June 2021