Attention is currently required from: Dmitry Zhadinets, Peter Marheine.
3 comments:
File cli_classic.c:
Patch Set #3, Line 1216: if (ret == 1) {
A comment here is that: probing never returns 1, and v1 probing never returned 1 either. […]
I mark this unresolved, because otherwise it is not shown in the latest diffs :(
but mostly this is to ask what people think about it.
Even if there will be changes to probe_flash, that's not for this commit.
File include/libflashrom.h:
Patch Set #4, Line 312: const char **all_matched_names,
I see from the implementation that the caller is expected to allocate this buffer, but that's not cl […]
I initially tried p.2 too! :) but from my memory I got stuck because chip name is const and it did not allow copying into non-const array. And I couldn't pass const array into function if I were to allocate memory for it... it was something like that.
The other APIs return the allocated array rather than taking it as param.
I can try again, in case I missed something. But possibly that p.2 needs to return array of names (I like more the idea to return the number of matches. as you suggested in other comment)
Patch Set #4, Line 313: unsigned int *all_matched_count,
I'd say it's more conventional to use negative values for error and positive values for success when […]
That's an interesting idea! I also like to have one less parameter.
The only thing to double-check: my initial version was keeping the same convention for return codes as it was in probing v1. This idea will change it (especially that 0 no longer indicates success). So you think it's fine?
To view, visit change 87341. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.