Change in flashrom[master]: ichspi: Split very long init function into two

[Nico Huber (Code Review)]

Attention is currently required from:  Felix Singer, Edward O'Callaghan, Angel Pons, Anastasia Klimchuk, Nikolai Artemiev.
Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58735 )

Change subject: ichspi: Split very long init function into two
......................................................................

Patch Set 3:

(3 comments)

Commit Message:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58735/comment/d678342d_572a1381 
PS3, Line 20: TEST=1) probe-read-verify-erase section-write-reboot
            : on Intel octopus board with GD25LQ128C/GD25LQ128D/GD25LQ128E
            : 2) probe and read on Panther Point (7 series PCH)
> If you still need a `TEST=` tag for some reason, you could do something like this: […]

Generally it seems fine to me to add all the existing test info.

About Tested-by:
You are right to ask, IMHO, as it sets somebody else's name in stone,
kind of (Git virtually never forgets). When somebody is CC'ed on Gerrit,
I guess it doesn't matter much (people could at least object). But if
not, better ask them personally. For active contributors I think we can
imply their consent :)

We don't have a rule for presence of Tested-by tags, AFAIK.

Patchset:

PS1:
> To close the comment: I could not find devices with older chipsets, but Nico saved me and tested tho […]

Sorry to disappoint. There seems to be a misunderstanding. PCHs inherited the
generation numbers from MCHs, not ICHs. So ICH7 is something different, much
older. We could ask in #flashrom and #coreboot channels for ICH7 testers. There
are some famous machines, e.g. ThinkPad X60/T60, with it. Or let's try this:
Angel, do you have any ICH7 board ready to boot? :)

File ichspi.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58735/comment/2b377824_4f881118 
PS1, Line 1717: 	msg_pdbg("0x00: 0x%04x     (SPIS)\n",
              : 		     mmio_readw(spibar + 0));
              : 	msg_pdbg("0x02: 0x%04x     (SPIC)\n",
              : 		     mmio_readw(spibar + 2));
              : 	msg_pdbg("0x04: 0x%08x (SPIA)\n",
              : 		     mmio_readl(spibar + 4));
              : 	ichspi_bbar = mmio_readl(spibar + 0x50);
              : 	msg_pdbg("0x50: 0x%08x (BBAR)\n",
              : 		     ichspi_bbar);
              : 	msg_pdbg("0x54: 0x%04x     (PREOP)\n",
              : 		     mmio_readw(spibar + 0x54));
              : 	msg_pdbg("0x56: 0x%04x     (OPTYPE)\n",
              : 		     mmio_readw(spibar + 0x56));
              : 	msg_pdbg("0x58: 0x%08x (OPMENU)\n",
              : 		     mmio_readl(spibar + 0x58));
              : 	msg_pdbg("0x5c: 0x%08x (OPMENU+4)\n",
              : 		     mmio_readl(spibar + 0x5c));
> Done in CB:60272. […]

Would have preferred it here, it seems wrong to change lines and then fix
them up right away. No strong feelings, though.