[S] Change in flashrom[master]: ichspi.c: Retype appropriate variables with bool

[Angel Pons (Code Review)]

Attention is currently required from: Felix Singer, Nico Huber.

Angel Pons has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/66892 )

Change subject: ichspi.c: Retype appropriate variables with bool
......................................................................

Patch Set 13:

(1 comment)

File ichspi.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/66892/comment/b25dabc7_4b40cb49 
PS7, Line 872: 		write_cmd = true;
Thanks for your response, Nico.
> > > And there is really no need to write walls of text because of this change.
> > > Especially not when it's repeating generic arguments that don't even apply
> > > to this case.
> >
> > I'm not sure if this is about my wall of text. I tried to de-escalate the situation, let me know what I could've done better. I don't mind writing walls of text, anyway.
>
> No, not your wall in particular. But now that I thought about it, you could
> have moved the discussion elsewhere. It has nothing to do anymore with the
> original comment. Having such discussions on Gerrit makes it harder to work
> on Gerrit, I believe.

Ack. Now that I think of it, I agree I could've moved the discussion elsewhere. The mailing list, for example? I'll keep this in mind for the future (and hope I don't need to do it).
> What I meant was generally the relation of this change and the initial comment
> to all the text people had to read after. This is and has for a long time been
> a (maybe the) weak spot of the project: People complain that the few experienced
> developers would become a bottleneck, at the same time they cause exactly that
> by keeping the experienced developers busy for naught. When I start a thread,
> I feel obliged to read all the following messages. Again, not pointing to any
> wall of text in particular, every one of them is somehow only a consequence
> of the message(s) before. It's the whole situation.

I too feel the same. If I don't read all the review comments, I often end up asking about things that were discussed already. Anyway, let's not belabor the point any further.
> The "Especially not[...]" part was more about the claims that anything would
> have to be rebased (that doesn't) or re-tested (that most likely wasn't).

Yes, I'm not sure what I wanted to say with that.