Attention is currently required from: Felix Singer, Nico Huber, Paul Menzel, Angel Pons, Michael Niewöhner.

View Change

1 comment:

• File board_enable.c:

  • Patch Set #2, Line 2339: return 0;

    I see, that's indeed a very good reason to implement it differently. […]

    As a final result I would like to use this functionality to be executed via libflashrom and fwupd. So I can add it as an unlock option, but then we have to add another table of functions, e.g. board_unlock_me.

    Just need the decision what would be the best. I kinda opt for the board_unlock_me and a separate argument for internal programmer for example. Since board_enable may have different silicon than Intel, it may be wise to not bloat it even further.

To view, visit change 56023. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.