Attention is currently required from: Felix Singer, Nico Huber, Edward O'Callaghan, Anastasia Klimchuk, Nikolai Artemiev.

Patch set 3:Code-Review +1

3 comments:

Commit Message:
- Patch Set #3, Line 20:
```
TEST=1) probe-read-verify-erase section-write-reboot
on Intel octopus board with GD25LQ128C/GD25LQ128D/GD25LQ128E
2) probe and read on Panther Point (7 series PCH)
```
  Personally, I don't really like these "tags" (here TEST or in other commits sometimes TESTED), becau […]
  If you still need a `TEST=` tag for some reason, you could do something like this:
```
 TEST=Check that the following scenarios still behave properly:
  1) Probe-read-verify-erase section-write-reboot
     on Intel octopus board with GD25LQ128C/GD25LQ128D/GD25LQ128E
  2) Probe and read on Panther Point (7 series PCH)
```
  Note that the text following `TEST=` provides information about how the test results were interpreted. Without this part, it might be that both tests failed spectacularly, but the commit message wouldn't be lying: the change *was* tested, but without success! 😄
  And yes, manually adding Tested-by tags is perfectly fine. I only use them when someone else has tested my changes. I feel a Tested-by tag is redundant when I've tested my own changes.
File ichspi.c:
- Patch Set #2, Line 1822: arg = extract_programmer_param("ich_spi_mode");
  Wow! this is great idea, I might use it in future, thank you!!
  I would leave this commit as is, hope it's fine.
  Sure, no problem!
- Patch Set #2, Line 1769:
  Yes this was accidental, I removed it.
  Thanks!

To view, visit change 58735. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.