[M] Change in flashrom[main]: More adequate progress

[Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review)]

Attention is currently required from: Sergii Dmytruk.

Anastasia Klimchuk has posted comments on this change by Sergii Dmytruk. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102?usp=email )

Change subject: More adequate progress
......................................................................

Patch Set 1:

(9 comments)

This change is ready for review.

Patchset:

PS1: 
A comment to fix the tests

Commit Message:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/280159dd_f1975f46?usp... :
PS1, Line 46: 
            : CLI shares terminal with the rest of the code
What does it mean? I don't understand :(

File dediprog.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/d434306c_36c7d7c6?usp... :
PS1, Line 596: 256
wow thanks for updating the comment! :) 
I will extract this into a separate commit

File dummyflasher.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/62878381_3cfaaaa5?usp... :
PS1, Line 58: unsigned long long delay_ns;
This is changing to nano seconds, is it to be able to set a more fine-grained delay?

In the example script, you use `freq=64mhz`, but I think 64mhz would be possible to do even before?

File en29lv640b.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/79d1f9ed_c73759b3?usp... :
PS1, Line 29: /* chunksize is 2 */
This can also be a separate commit which updates the comment only.

File include/flash.h:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/7b737178_4be94ba0?usp... :
PS1, Line 544: struct stage_progress {
             : 	size_t current;
             : 	size_t total;
             : };
And can this go to libflashrom.h , where the struct flashrom_progress is already?

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/9ce51976_d1b034e8?usp... :
PS1, Line 587: struct stage_progress stage_progress[FLASHROM_PROGRESS_NR];
Maybe this can go inside `struct flashrom_progress` ? Why do we need two structs on the same level, and they both are about progress. If they have to go together, they better be inside the same struct.

File linux_mtd.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/135d110c_3f5a4bf3?usp... :
PS1, Line 298: update_progress(flash, FLASHROM_PROGRESS_ERASE, u + data->erasesize, len);
Why you removed this? Should it be
> update_progress(flash, FLASHROM_PROGRESS_ERASE, data->erasesize);

File spi.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/b5251ee8_c1d8a94f?usp... :
PS1, Line 118: update_progress(flash, FLASHROM_PROGRESS_READ, start - start_address + to_read, end_address);
Why removing, should this be
> update_progress(flash, FLASHROM_PROGRESS_READ, to_read);