Attention is currently required from: Angel Pons. Edward O'Callaghan has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/52473 )
Change subject: s25f.c: Fix mismatched function definitions ......................................................................
Patch Set 3:
(1 comment)
Commit Message:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/52473/comment/668a50dd_5b0a8840 PS1, Line 8: : This was missed because `uint32_t` is `unsigned int` in most cases. : However, it is not the case for DJGPP 6.1.0 for some reason.
Last couple of weeks have been pretty painful :| I've just been on and off review unofficially to […]
Understood re the regression :< C + many platforms + bit rot under rugs in Flashrom has been a potent combo to start fires. Generally since it bisect's to Nikolai work we should get him on the hook as he works approx 50% on Flashrom at the moment. I am trying to get more folks on IRC and integrating with upstream so everyone is working together and things are moving in that direction, certainly better than a year ago for example.
I could make the patch but I think you are better positioned to test it? It is very very hard at Google to have any other environments than the ones that are given, I don't know how to address this easily. I think buildbot is the way forwards here.
For DJGPP it sounds like what we really need to do here is ensure this is integrated into the buildbot somehow? I think that is actually the problem here to be scalable. I'll ping Patrick to see if he has any cycles he could spare to assist in how we can do that.
For the sanity check I think you have thought about it way more deeply than I. My concern was restricted to `addr`. Is this something we can perhaps get Anastasia across who is keen to get these unit tests to a point of maturity. I wonder if there is anything in this for her?
-
Edward O'Callaghan (Code Review)