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/+/55741 )
Change subject: tests: Guard sys/io.h the same as in hwaccess_x86_io.h ......................................................................
Patch Set 3:
(3 comments)
File hwaccess_x86_io_unittest.h:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55741/comment/65a3a591_86d40b27 PS2, Line 32:
Why the guards are different? […]
I moved these guards above, as you suggested. But I don't understand why you suggested different guards, not the ones that hwaccess_x86_io.h uses. Happy to change if needed, just want to understand why. Keeping this comment unresolved.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55741/comment/bb6f6910_a43ec342 PS2, Line 41: #if IS_X86 && defined(__linux__) || defined(__GLIBC__)
For the `IS_x86`, don't guard #include stmt's as it adds a lot of cyclomatic complexity to the prepr […]
Thanks to your comment! I found a problem in the first version of the patch... but because I also wrote the condition wrong (forgot the parentheses), it was "working by coincidence" :\
IS_X86 macro is not visible from here, it is not defined yet at the point of time when this header is included (means is it always false). So I copied its definition from platform.h, otherwise this comment is resolved.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55741/comment/3f96566f_adb5f536 PS2, Line 53:
`#endif /* __i386__ || __x86_64__ */`
see my other reply