[M] Change in flashrom[master]: Replace all flashchips accesses with get functions

[Stefan Reinauer (Code Review)]

Attention is currently required from: Anastasia Klimchuk, Edward O'Callaghan.

Stefan Reinauer has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/75646?usp=email )

Change subject: Replace all flashchips accesses with get functions
......................................................................

Patch Set 5:

(6 comments)

Patchset:

PS5: 
good thoughts on the simplification.. maybe generally the API should already have an init function at this point that handles a possible failure case (flashchips = NULL) and bails out so we don't have to test for null/0 at various places in the code over and again.

File flashchips.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/75646/comment/ab2028b4_0acf0ddf :
PS5, Line 34: internal_
> no need to rename if it becomes static, also "internal" is a overloaded term with the internal progr […]

i understand there is no technical need, but i did it to make it more obvious that it is not coming from the outside. it keeps the code easier to understand

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/75646/comment/571ad0b5_ced6bafb :
PS5, Line 20844: get_flashchips(void)
> you *could* have a signature of: […]

sure, but that would be more complex.

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/75646/comment/e0d7eb5f_cdff91bf :
PS5, Line 20849: unsigned int
> should be `size_t` for the size of an array.

maybe so. it was unsigned int before, so i didn't change it. if we want to fix that, we could do that in a separate patch that focused on that. trying to keep it to one logical change per patch

File ichspi.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/75646/comment/3f7ed0e0_aa93c407 :
PS5, Line 1469: 	const struct flashchip *chip;
              : 
              : 	struct flashchip *flashchips=get_flashchips();
              : 
              : 	if (!flashchips)
              : 		return NULL;
>

very clever. and doesn't check the return value. i suppose we could bail out earlier if we don't have a good database in memory

File libflashrom.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/75646/comment/39849728_2d12ddb0 :
PS5, Line 95: unsigned int
> size_t

shouldn't then i downstairs also be size_t? not against this, but it seems that is a larger consistency cleanup that needs to happen across the tree separately if this is a notion that is agreed upon.