[M] Change in flashrom[master]: flashchips: Add support for GigaDevice GD25LR256E, GD251R512ME

[Martin L Roth (Code Review)]

Attention is currently required from: Anastasia Klimchuk, Angel Pons, Martin Roth, Raj Astekar, Ravishankar Sarawadi, Wonkyu Kim.

Martin L Roth has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58025?usp=email )

Change subject: flashchips: Add support for GigaDevice GD25LR256E, GD251R512ME
......................................................................

Patch Set 7:

(2 comments)

Commit Message:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58025/comment/0b7000b9_0f03f689 :
PS6, Line 11:   https://www.gigadevice.com/datasheet/gd25lr512me/
> The links are not working anymore. […]

Updated to archive.org links

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58025/comment/60856779_26ce3c5c :
PS6, Line 17: sudo dut-control cold_reset:on fw_wp_en:off spi2_buf_en:on spi2_buf_on_flex_en:on spi2_vref:pp1800 spi_hold:off
            : sudo flashrom -V -p raiden_debug_spi -w <test_binary>
            : sudo dut-control spi2_buf_en:off spi2_buf_on_flex_en:off spi2_vref:off spi_hold:off cold_reset:off
> These are probably the commands used by original patch author (which is all good). […]

I only have access to the gd25lr512me chip and flashed with a dediprog. I added my command and got rid of all the unnecessary parts of the original commands.

For flash chips though, I wouldn't think the command line used would matter very much. Does which programmer is used actually matter?

I did actually test reading and erasing form the gd25lr512me chip in addition to just writing though.  I did not test any locking functionality however.

Should we add an L to PREW for testing to show that the locking functionality has been verified?