Attention is currently required from: J. Neuschäfer, Riku Viitanen, Sydney, Thomas Heijligen.
Anastasia Klimchuk has posted comments on this change by Sydney. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/82229?usp=email )
Change subject: Add documentation for pico-serprog ......................................................................
Patch Set 4: Code-Review+2
(2 comments)
Patchset:
PS3:
Some comments on wording
I read the latest version, it seems the comments are resolved? But if not, please tell. Thanks for reviewing!
Patchset:
PS4: I have a question for all three of you. You all have forks of flashrom, with some cool stuff which people use. What do you think about moving your development upstream? I don't know of the reasons you made forks, are there technical reasons why this can't be upstream? I am interested to discuss.
For example, I learned about pico-serprog because from time to time people send patches to add support for a new chip, and they say "tested with pico-serprog". I have seen it several times so I remember. What do you think of adding pico-serprog upstream, can it be a programmer here? This was an example, but the question is to all of you.
As for the technical aspects, if you add a new file(s), you add your copyright at the top of the file, also we have the MAINTAINERS file where you identify yourself as a maintainer for your programmer. More details here https://flashrom.org/about_flashrom/team.html
This is something to think about, can be for later, not necessarily for right now. What do you think?
Also just to be clear: the question does not affect this patch, the patch goes ahead independently of it. It's just convenient, all you are here! :)
-
Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review)