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

Change in flashrom[master]: [RFC] spi_master: Add shutdown function in spi_master struct
by Nico Huber (Code Review) June 29, 2021

June 29, 2021

Attention is currently required from: Edward O'Callaghan, Angel Pons, Anastasia Klimchuk. Nico Huber 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: (4 comments) Commit Message: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55932/comment/b8cca1cc_04e78950 PS1, Line 14: adding another argument to register_spi_master. The new version seems better! If the shutdown function can be decided at compile time, just like any other master function, this makes things much cleaner. Patchset: PS1: > 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? I guess `master` is the right place as that is what the `data` is tied to. They are not the same thing. And there is even a 1:n relation. A programmer driver can register multiple masters. A most intricate example is the `internal` programmer. It can add multiple masters for the chipset alone; because there are different buses where the BIOS flash could be connected. It could even be indirectly connected e.g. through a super-i/o chip on the LPC bus, so `internal` might add a master for the super-i/o as well. `linux_mtd` is also considered part of the `internal` programmer on plat- forms where that combination is possible. If one thinks it through, even the EC masters should be part of it (something that was missed in the chromium fork, it seems). > 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. Only in the same file for the "few" masters that you have been looking at so far ;) > > 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. It's a hierarchy. In fact, we already have a programmer shutdown. Just the same for all programmers which simply calls all the master's shutdown functions. This may change in the future. Same as it was for the masters, there is global state cluttered over programmers. If that is to change, we'll need per-programmer shutdown pointers as well. More work in that direction will not cease to pop up soon. The libflashrom API provides a hint: `struct flashrom_programmer`. Where is that defined? Ooops, nobody did it (yet) ;) This should probably con- tain a pointer to the `struct programmer_entry` and one to its runtime `data`. And if that would ever be done: There is also a library-level context missing. That's not even declared yet (API needs to change /o\). > > 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. +1 > > 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. Now that we pass `data` to the registration functions, it might be easy to move it to `registered_master`. File linux_spi.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55932/comment/461477af_084711c5 PS1, Line 243: if (register_spi_master(&spi_master_linux, spi_data)) : return 1; /* core does cleanup */ : return 0; : Or just return register_spi_master(&spi_master_linux, spi_data); File programmer.h: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55932/comment/59c7b8fb_8388a9aa PS1, Line 359: shutdown > I am not sure how others feel but I would vote for this to be ideally called `deinit` and logically […] I think we'll need shutdown functions for both eventually. Starting with the masters seems like a good next step. -- 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: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Attention: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Attention: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:16:45 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No Comment-In-Reply-To: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec(a)chromium.org> Comment-In-Reply-To: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-MessageType: comment

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: ich_descriptors: Normalize chipset detection
by Michał Żygowski (Code Review) June 29, 2021

June 29, 2021

Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber. Michał Żygowski has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55651 ) Change subject: ich_descriptors: Normalize chipset detection ...................................................................... Patch Set 3: Code-Review+2 -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55651 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: Ic5a5fee870202173b3a9813b03ec261e8ee45155 Gerrit-Change-Number: 55651 Gerrit-PatchSet: 3 Gerrit-Owner: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Michał Żygowski <michal.zygowski(a)3mdeb.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: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:53:16 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: No Gerrit-Has-Labels: Yes Gerrit-MessageType: comment

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: ich_descriptors: Don't base chipset detection on `freq_read`
by Michał Żygowski (Code Review) June 29, 2021

June 29, 2021

Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber. Michał Żygowski has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55650 ) Change subject: ich_descriptors: Don't base chipset detection on `freq_read` ...................................................................... Patch Set 3: Code-Review+2 -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55650 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I658d76ec2567d1d660a18d0b0ae71c744e603e8f Gerrit-Change-Number: 55650 Gerrit-PatchSet: 3 Gerrit-Owner: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Michał Żygowski <michal.zygowski(a)3mdeb.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: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:51:43 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: No Gerrit-Has-Labels: Yes Gerrit-MessageType: comment

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: ich_descriptors: Revise detection for chipsets w/ ICCRIBA
by Michał Żygowski (Code Review) June 29, 2021

June 29, 2021

Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber. Michał Żygowski has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55647 ) Change subject: ich_descriptors: Revise detection for chipsets w/ ICCRIBA ...................................................................... Patch Set 4: Code-Review+2 (1 comment) File ich_descriptors.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55647/comment/25aa0429_7f082b81 PS3, Line 946: } else if (upper->MDTBA == 0x00) { > Ping Nah, I guess it is not worth it. -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55647 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I587ad1abe390843d4a9e74431b6fc4b63f8ba512 Gerrit-Change-Number: 55647 Gerrit-PatchSet: 4 Gerrit-Owner: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Michał Żygowski <michal.zygowski(a)3mdeb.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: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:51:10 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: Yes Comment-In-Reply-To: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Comment-In-Reply-To: Michał Żygowski <michal.zygowski(a)3mdeb.com> Gerrit-MessageType: comment

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: [RFC] spi_master: Add shutdown function in spi_master struct
by Edward O'Callaghan (Code Review) June 29, 2021

June 29, 2021

Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber, Angel Pons, Anastasia Klimchuk. Edward O'Callaghan 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) File programmer.h: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55932/comment/4eea0baf_cc4cdfb8 PS1, Line 359: shutdown I am not sure how others feel but I would vote for this to be ideally called `deinit` and logically one level up in `struct programmer_entry`. We can get rid of register_shutdown() then. -- 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: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Attention: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:05:45 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No Gerrit-MessageType: comment

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: dediprog: Init-shutdown test for dediprog
by Edward O'Callaghan (Code Review) June 29, 2021

June 29, 2021

Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber, Angel Pons, Anastasia Klimchuk. Edward O'Callaghan has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55934 ) Change subject: dediprog: Init-shutdown test for dediprog ...................................................................... Patch Set 2: Code-Review+1 (1 comment) File tests/tests.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55934/comment/99912301_54201791 PS2, Line 91: 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) : { : /* 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) : { : /* LOG_ME; */ : if (current_io && current_io->outw) : current_io->outw(current_io->state, value, 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) : { : /* LOG_ME; */ : if (current_io && current_io->outl) : current_io->outl(current_io->state, value, port); : } : : unsigned int __wrap_test_inl(unsigned short port) : { this style fix that sneaked in here is a separate patch -- 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: 2 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: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Gerrit-Attention: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Attention: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:00:14 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: Yes Gerrit-MessageType: comment

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: dediprog: Init-shutdown test for dediprog
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) June 29, 2021

June 29, 2021

Hello build bot (Jenkins), I'd like you to reexamine a change. Please visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55934 to look at the new patch set (#2). 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, 119 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) git pull ssh://review.coreboot.org:29418/flashrom refs/changes/34/55934/2 -- 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: 2 Gerrit-Owner: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-MessageType: newpatchset

1 0

Change in flashrom[master]: dediprog: Init-shutdown test for dediprog
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) June 29, 2021

June 29, 2021

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) June 29, 2021

June 29, 2021

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) June 29, 2021

June 29, 2021

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