[flashrom-gerrit] Change in flashrom[master]: layout: Introduce layout_next()

[Edward O'Callaghan (Code Review)]

Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber, Daniel Campello, Anastasia Klimchuk, Peter Marheine.
Edward O'Callaghan has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/33542 )

Change subject: layout: Introduce layout_next()
......................................................................

Patch Set 4: Code-Review+2

(2 comments)

Commit Message:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/33542/comment/8e68d3df_38c33b06 
PS3, Line 7: layout: Introduce layout_next()
           : 
           : Also, a `layout.c` internal version _layout_next()
> I added both, the API one uses pointers to const struct romentries […]

The `_` prefix definitely requires extra cognitive load for the causal reader if one is not use to the `_` prefix to mean internal convention. Given that so many functions have such similar names in the file I think the `mutable_layout_next()` alternative you suggested Nico is a better choice to go with.

File layout.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/33542/comment/4da6d379_d9294a3a 
PS3, Line 44: static struct romentry *_layout_next(
> Their signatures differ, see comment thread on the commit message.

Nico is correct, one is const while the other isn't. I think the rename to `mutable_layout_next()` will fix up the confusion.