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:
(1 comment)
Patchset:
PS4:
I guess we just need a rebase here to resolve conflicts
--
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: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 12:19:42 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Attention is currently required from: Edward O'Callaghan, Anastasia Klimchuk.
Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/54890 )
Change subject: programmer: Introduce default shutdown function
......................................................................
Patch Set 5: Code-Review+2
(1 comment)
Patchset:
PS5:
I wanted to say: let's not bikeshed, we won't need it for long.
But then again, do we need it at all? All the candidates for
this function will likely get a shutdown NULL pointer once the
allocation moves into common code. No matter if we introduce
default_shutdown() or not, right?
--
To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/54890
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings
Gerrit-Project: flashrom
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: I8b20717ba549e12edffbc5d1643ff064a4f0c517
Gerrit-Change-Number: 54890
Gerrit-PatchSet: 5
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: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 09:42:03 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: Yes
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Attention is currently required from: Anastasia Klimchuk.
Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55934 )
Change subject: dediprog: Init-shutdown test for dediprog
......................................................................
Patch Set 3:
(2 comments)
File tests/io_mock.h:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55934/comment/bca06c00_85043fb4
PS3, Line 34: /* Define libusb symbols to avoid dependency on libusb.h */
Now that I realized that we don't mock `libusb.h` for the code under
test. I wonder why we should avoid it here? It doesn't hurt so I'm
ok with it. Just wondering.
(I guess it wouldn't be hard to build the tests without libusb,
but that can still be done if anyone ever needs it.)
File tests/io_mock.h:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55934/comment/3c357fa5_e8df9617
PS2, Line 52: */
> Done, it works! but I'm not sure I understand how it works... […]
Oh, I missed earlier that you avoid the libusb dependency here while
it's still needed for the tests to build (includes of the code under
test). There are some explanations why this works. Here is why this
is legal in C:
* The typedef is somewhat transparent. You can repeat it whereever you want, as long as it's the same type.
* Just saying `struct libusb_device_handle;` without a member list makes it an incomplete type. That's good enough to declare pointers as long as the compiler doesn't need to know the size of the type, i.e. we don't try to dereference anything. Strictly speaking, the type we use here is not `libusb_device_handle`, it is `pointer to libusb_device_handle`.
* Naturally, if incomplete types are allowed, it must be allowed to mix them with the actual (complete) type in another compilation unit. Otherwise they would be rather useless.
(NB. Incomplete types are a means of information hiding in C.)
Here is my favorite explanation: It all doesn't matter ;) because the
compiler only looks at compilation units individually. And the linker
who stitches the compilation results of the various compilation units
together doesn't know C and its types. It doesn't even have to know
parameters. There's a call to a symbol, it replaces the symbol with
an address. That's about it. To get a working program out of it, the
compiler needs to know the size of the parameters, and the size needs
to match across compilation units. All pointers have the same size in
C which makes it work even if we'd use `int *` here.
--
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: 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-Attention: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 08:53:21 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Comment-In-Reply-To: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de>
Comment-In-Reply-To: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org>
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Attention is currently required from: Thomas Heijligen, 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 2:
(1 comment)
Patchset:
PS1:
> thank you, this is actually very useful! (as usual!) […]
The "few" wasn't meant literally :)
About other masters, well, it's not very obvious indeed. As always it's
hard to see/show absence of something. And it turns out that the `internal`
programer might actually be the only case of this:
Let's see what files have a `struct programmer_entry`:
$ git grep -l '^const struct programmer_entry ' *.c
and which call some `register_*master()`:
$ git grep -l '\<register_\([a-z_]*\)master(' *.c
and compare the two:
$ diff -u <(git grep -l '^const struct programmer_entry ' *.c) <(git grep -l '\<register_\([a-z_]*\)master(' *.c)
Some of it is noise (opaque.c, bitbang_spi.c, programmer.c are just
infrastructure). But there are some masters without a programmer entry:
* ichspi.c
* it85spi.c
* it87spi.c
* mcp6x_spi.c
* sb600spi.c
* wbsio_spi.c
All files not touched by commit 4f5169df. And I assume all part of the
`internal` programmer.
--
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: 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: Thomas Heijligen <src(a)posteo.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org>
Gerrit-CC: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org>
Gerrit-Attention: Thomas Heijligen <src(a)posteo.de>
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: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 08:19:30 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Comment-In-Reply-To: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de>
Comment-In-Reply-To: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org>
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Angel Pons has submitted this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55887 )
Change subject: dediprog: Separate shutdown from failed init cleanup
......................................................................
dediprog: Separate shutdown from failed init cleanup
Shutdown function was covering two different jobs here: 1) the actual
shutdown which is run at the end of the driver's lifecycle and
2) cleanup in cases when initialisation failed. Now, shutdown is only
doing its main job (#1), and the driver itself is doing cleanup
when init fails (#2).
The good thing is that now resources are released/closed immediately
in cases when init fails (vs shutdown function which was run at some
point later), and the driver leaves clean space after itself if init
fails.
And very importantly this unlocks API change which plans to move
register_shutdown inside register master API, see
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/51761
BUG=b:185191942
TEST=builds
Change-Id: I3273da907614a042d50090338c337dfd64695354
Signed-off-by: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55887
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de>
---
M dediprog.c
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Approvals:
build bot (Jenkins): Verified
Nico Huber: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve
Angel Pons: Looks good to me, approved
diff --git a/dediprog.c b/dediprog.c
index 6a2d1f2..b47e8e9 100644
--- a/dediprog.c
+++ b/dediprog.c
@@ -1227,16 +1227,13 @@
msg_pinfo("Using dediprog id SF%06d.\n", found_id);
}
- if (register_shutdown(dediprog_shutdown, NULL))
- return 1;
-
/* Try reading the devicestring. If that fails and the device is old (FW < 6.0.0, which we can not know)
* then we need to try the "set voltage" command and then attempt to read the devicestring again. */
if (dediprog_check_devicestring()) {
if (dediprog_set_voltage())
- return 1;
+ goto init_err_cleanup_exit;
if (dediprog_check_devicestring())
- return 1;
+ goto init_err_cleanup_exit;
}
/* SF100/SF200 uses one in/out endpoint, SF600 uses separate in/out endpoints */
@@ -1261,11 +1258,11 @@
dediprog_set_spi_speed(spispeed_idx) ||
dediprog_set_spi_voltage(millivolt)) {
dediprog_set_leds(LED_ERROR);
- return 1;
+ goto init_err_cleanup_exit;
}
if (dediprog_standalone_mode())
- return 1;
+ goto init_err_cleanup_exit;
if ((dediprog_devicetype == DEV_SF100) ||
(dediprog_devicetype == DEV_SF600 && protocol() == PROTOCOL_V3))
@@ -1274,10 +1271,17 @@
if (protocol() >= PROTOCOL_V2)
spi_master_dediprog.features |= SPI_MASTER_4BA;
+ if (register_shutdown(dediprog_shutdown, NULL))
+ goto init_err_cleanup_exit;
+
if (register_spi_master(&spi_master_dediprog, NULL) || dediprog_set_leds(LED_NONE))
- return 1;
+ return 1; /* shutdown function does cleanup */
return 0;
+
+init_err_cleanup_exit:
+ dediprog_shutdown(NULL);
+ return 1;
}
const struct programmer_entry programmer_dediprog = {
--
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: 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-MessageType: merged
Angel Pons has submitted this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55818 )
Change subject: buspirate_spi: Use non-zero return value from buspirate_sendrecv
......................................................................
buspirate_spi: Use non-zero return value from buspirate_sendrecv
Return values for buspirate_sendrecv come from serialport_write
and serialport_read, and those return 1s for any error. No need
to explicity assign ret = 1, because it is already 1 for error.
Follow up on commit 751afa88a7f22487069665c5d206ae490f158231
where this idea was suggested.
BUG=b:185191942
TEST=builds
Change-Id: I31fd70f607dc965d5cac1cd0116faa447dbc177a
Signed-off-by: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55818
Reviewed-by: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com>
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org>
---
M buspirate_spi.c
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
Approvals:
build bot (Jenkins): Verified
Angel Pons: Looks good to me, approved
diff --git a/buspirate_spi.c b/buspirate_spi.c
index bfd0e05..b56d422 100644
--- a/buspirate_spi.c
+++ b/buspirate_spi.c
@@ -629,10 +629,8 @@
/* Enter raw SPI mode */
bp_commbuf[0] = 0x01;
ret = buspirate_sendrecv(bp_commbuf, 1, 0);
- if (ret) {
- ret = 1;
+ if (ret)
goto init_err_cleanup_exit;
- }
if ((ret = buspirate_wait_for_string(bp_commbuf, "SPI")))
goto init_err_cleanup_exit;
if ((ret = buspirate_sendrecv(bp_commbuf, 0, 1)))
@@ -655,10 +653,8 @@
msg_pdbg("Enabling PSUs.\n");
}
ret = buspirate_sendrecv(bp_commbuf, 1, 1);
- if (ret) {
- ret = 1;
+ if (ret)
goto init_err_cleanup_exit;
- }
if (bp_commbuf[0] != 0x01) {
msg_perr("Protocol error while setting power/CS/AUX(/Pull-up resistors)!\n");
ret = 1;
@@ -668,10 +664,8 @@
/* Set SPI speed */
bp_commbuf[0] = 0x60 | spispeed;
ret = buspirate_sendrecv(bp_commbuf, 1, 1);
- if (ret) {
- ret = 1;
+ if (ret)
goto init_err_cleanup_exit;
- }
if (bp_commbuf[0] != 0x01) {
msg_perr("Protocol error while setting SPI speed!\n");
ret = 1;
@@ -685,10 +679,8 @@
msg_pdbg("Pull-ups enabled, so using HiZ pin output! (Open-Drain mode)\n");
}
ret = buspirate_sendrecv(bp_commbuf, 1, 1);
- if (ret) {
- ret = 1;
+ if (ret)
goto init_err_cleanup_exit;
- }
if (bp_commbuf[0] != 0x01) {
msg_perr("Protocol error while setting SPI config!\n");
ret = 1;
@@ -698,10 +690,8 @@
/* De-assert CS# */
bp_commbuf[0] = 0x03;
ret = buspirate_sendrecv(bp_commbuf, 1, 1);
- if (ret) {
- ret = 1;
+ if (ret)
goto init_err_cleanup_exit;
- }
if (bp_commbuf[0] != 0x01) {
msg_perr("Protocol error while raising CS#!\n");
ret = 1;
--
To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55818
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings
Gerrit-Project: flashrom
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: I31fd70f607dc965d5cac1cd0116faa447dbc177a
Gerrit-Change-Number: 55818
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: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org>
Gerrit-MessageType: merged
Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber, Anastasia Klimchuk.
Angel Pons has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55934 )
Change subject: dediprog: Init-shutdown test for dediprog
......................................................................
Patch Set 3: Code-Review+1
(3 comments)
Commit Message:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55934/comment/2d78b895_95715f3a
PS3, Line 9: This patch adds mocks for libusb functions. To avoid dependency on
I expect that some of the code could be reused to test other libusb programmers. Would it make sense to have libusb mocks in a separate compilation unit?
File tests/init_shutdown.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55934/comment/710bfe4a_1e00f15d
PS3, Line 98: /* dediprog_cmds CMD_READ_PROG_INFO */
Hmmm, how about making a patch that moves the dediprog definitions the tests need into a header?
File tests/tests.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55934/comment/2454c11f_9a054ff2
PS3, Line 140: 2021
Is this magic number the current year? Or does it have another meaning?
--
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: 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-Attention: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de>
Gerrit-Attention: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 08:11:00 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: Yes
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber, Anastasia Klimchuk.
Angel Pons has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55974 )
Change subject: tests.c: Move opening brace on new line for function body
......................................................................
Patch Set 1: Code-Review+2
--
To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55974
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings
Gerrit-Project: flashrom
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: Ia1b00bb68ec2426161bfc183d93d2c0719a949ec
Gerrit-Change-Number: 55974
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: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de>
Gerrit-Attention: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 08:05:28 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: No
Gerrit-Has-Labels: Yes
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber, Thomas Heijligen, 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 2:
(4 comments)
Commit Message:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55932/comment/1744ba4e_7fb50a4d
PS1, Line 14: adding another argument to register_spi_master.
> The new version seems better! If the shutdown function can be […]
I am so happy to hear this!
Patchset:
PS1:
> > I wasn't sure which one of the structs is the right place for the shutdown function, and even more […]
thank you, this is actually very useful! (as usual!)
If master is a right place, than the whole change can be done in 3 chunks spi/par/opaque (like we did with the data). Then moving data and shutdown into registered_master can be next step? But that would be internal to the core, callers won't even notice (or shouldn't notice to be precise).
>>> Only in the same file for the "few" masters that you have been looking at
so far ;)
I had commit 4f5169df5ff2b63a40d654ab133b8a3108b6a599 in mind when I said "in the same file", looks like lots of masters, but maybe I misunderstand something?
File linux_spi.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55932/comment/57cd61d5_24cfa2c0
PS1, Line 243: if (register_spi_master(&spi_master_linux, spi_data))
: return 1; /* core does cleanup */
: return 0;
:
> Or just […]
Done
File programmer.h:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55932/comment/097e9372_b256c172
PS1, Line 359: shutdown
> I think we'll need shutdown functions for both eventually. Starting with […]
>>>for this to be ideally called `deinit` and logically one level up in `struct programmer_entry`
There is no data one level up, but shutdown function needs data. I started thinking about programmer_entry, but then returned back to master struct, because it has data.
Maybe deinit is a different thing to what is currently called "shutdown function"?
--
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: 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: Thomas Heijligen <src(a)posteo.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: Thomas Heijligen <src(a)posteo.de>
Gerrit-Attention: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec(a)chromium.org>
Gerrit-Attention: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 06:48:41 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Comment-In-Reply-To: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de>
Comment-In-Reply-To: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec(a)chromium.org>
Comment-In-Reply-To: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org>
Gerrit-MessageType: comment