Peter Marheine has submitted this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/82677?usp=email )
(
1 is the latest approved patch-set. No files were changed between the latest approved patch-set and the submitted one. )Change subject: Add clarification to struct flash_region on chipoff_t ......................................................................
Add clarification to struct flash_region on chipoff_t
Although chipoff_t is fairly clearly documented on its own, it seems fairly frequent that developers will treat the end address of a flash region as an exclusive upper bound rather than the inclusive one it should be; for example CB:82496 fixes an incorrect use that affected multiple sites, and CB:73571 stemmed from a similar cause. Add a clarifying comment to call attention to this, to help programmers avoid making similar mistakes in the future.
Change-Id: I80b61a87ca31bd5a116224aadb4e211ee6841e1f Signed-off-by: Peter Marheine pmarheine@chromium.org Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/82677 Reviewed-by: Hsuan-ting Chen roccochen@google.com Reviewed-by: Anastasia Klimchuk aklm@chromium.org Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) no-reply@coreboot.org --- M include/layout.h 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Approvals: Anastasia Klimchuk: Looks good to me, approved build bot (Jenkins): Verified Hsuan-ting Chen: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve
diff --git a/include/layout.h b/include/layout.h index 5614bea..d03a15b 100644 --- a/include/layout.h +++ b/include/layout.h @@ -37,6 +37,11 @@
struct flash_region { char *name; + /* + * Note that because start and end are chipoff_t, end is an inclusive upper + * bound: the length of a region is (end - start + 1) bytes and it is + * impossible to represent a region with zero length. + */ chipoff_t start; chipoff_t end; bool read_prot;