Attention is currently required from: Edward O'Callaghan, Angel Pons, Nikolai Artemiev, Sergii Dmytruk.

View Change

7 comments:

• File libflashrom.h:

  • Patch Set #25, Line 148: const

    In a forward declaration, `const` as a qualifier of a parameter (i.e.
    not a qualifier for something a parameter points to) is meaningless.
    Arguments are always passed by value and it doesn't matter to the
    caller if the callee will change its own copy.

• File writeprotect.c:

  • Patch Set #25, Line 374:

    Spurious line break?

  • Patch Set #25, Line 406: const

    This is correct usage of `const`. It tells the compiler and the reader
    that the intention is not to change the value.

  • Patch Set #25, Line 410: return 1;

    Wouldn't it be a success if `mode == WP_MODE_DISABLE`?

  • Patch Set #25, Line 412: f(

    Missing space. Could be a `switch/case` though.

  • Patch Set #25, Line 420: f(

    Missing space.

  • Patch Set #25, Line 437: }

    I wonder if it's a good idea to have SRP bits in an array. The intention
    is unclear. Is `srp_bit_count` only used to decide if SRP1 is exists? or
    does it prepare for more than 2 SRP bits? It seems the code would overall
    be more clear if we had separate bit definitions named by what we expect
    them to do. For instance, we expect SRP0 to always control the hardware
    write protection, so why not call it `hwwp` or something like that?

To view, visit change 58483. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.