Change in flashrom[master]: ite_ec: Implement support for flashing ITE ECs found on TUXEDO laptops

[Michael Niewöhner (Code Review)]

Attention is currently required from:  Felix Singer, Nico Huber, Michał Żygowski, Paul Menzel, Sergii Dmytruk.
Michael Niewöhner has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55715 )

Change subject: ite_ec: Implement support for flashing ITE ECs found on TUXEDO laptops
......................................................................

Patch Set 20:

(5 comments)

File ite_ecfw.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55715/comment/c7b91e76_69963594 
PS20, Line 87: enables
disables

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55715/comment/0a5cd172_6eda45d9 
PS20, Line 87: crc_check
this bit is inverted (1 = disable); change the name to `no_crc_check`?

see https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55715/comment/a9260ea9_773456f9/

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55715/comment/41c5b3cc_e21a14f1 
PS20, Line 91: fspi_mirror
this bit is negated (1 = disable), change the name to `no_fspi_mirror`?

see https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55715/comment/a9260ea9_773456f9/

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55715/comment/3d9582cc_54634590 
PS20, Line 93: pwm_blinking
this bit is negated (1 = disable); change the name to `no_pwm_blinking`?

see https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55715/comment/a9260ea9_773456f9/

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55715/comment/26725cd1_135c676f 
PS20, Line 332: 		if (blocks_1_2) {
              : 			itestring->flags.clock_source = CLOCK_SOURCE_INTERNAL;
              : 
hm, I know the reference implementation does that... but does it make sense at all to make the clock source dependent on the block count? I somehow have the feeling the reference implementation misuses the block count to differentiate EC with and without crystal-free (internal) support :S