Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber, Paul Menzel, Edward O'Callaghan, Angel Pons, Anastasia Klimchuk, Nikolai Artemiev. Sergii Dmytruk has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58738 )
Change subject: cli_classic: add writeprotect CLI ......................................................................
Patch Set 18:
(1 comment)
File cli_classic.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58738/comment/c9108ecb_0a6f01ef PS17, Line 220: ret = flashrom_wp_set_range(flash, &cfg, &range); : if (ret) { : msg_gerr("The chip does not support the requested range.\n"); : return ret; : } : : /* Write range before other operations (i.e. enabling HW protection) */ : ret = write_wp_config(flash, &cfg); : if (ret) : return ret;
It's good to know there is no harm, but is there any effect of doing 1,2 without 3? What would be the most common usage, 1-2-3 or 1-2?
1-2 case is harmless and quite useless since WP config is essentially opaque.
The usual intention is that a user would try to set the range (read/set_range/write), check that it succeeded, and only then set the mode (read/set_mode/write). So we could possibly change the set_mode and set_range functions to also write to the chip, but there are still the problems.
In this case making calls do more work will make more sense if config gets completely removed from the API as a result, but that needs some kind of error object that can be converted to a string or just `char **error` that gets set to a descriptive error message.
-
Sergii Dmytruk (Code Review)