Change in flashrom[master]: [RFC] writeprotect, cli_classic: create new writeprotect foundation

[Angel Pons (Code Review)]

Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber, Edward O'Callaghan, Nikolai Artemiev, Anastasia Klimchuk.
Angel Pons has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58474 )

Change subject: [RFC] writeprotect, cli_classic: create new writeprotect foundation
......................................................................

Patch Set 3:

(7 comments)

File cli_classic.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58474/comment/82cec5c7_98313ad8 
PS3, Line 691: bool
const bool

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58474/comment/aec7d380_20132477 
PS3, Line 695: |
nit: missing space before `|`

For another patch: Shouldn't these be short-circuiting logical OR `||` instead? The `|` is a bit-wise OR.

File writeprotect.h:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58474/comment/1a1c8be6_23a423db 
PS3, Line 21: #define MAX_WP_RANGES 128
Why 128?

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58474/comment/b002f482_20525797 
PS3, Line 31: uint32_t
Missing header include

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58474/comment/0cdc4625_85f25602 
PS3, Line 36: bool
Missing header include

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58474/comment/04361dc1_7ea9eb1f 
PS3, Line 38: size_t
Missing header include

File writeprotect.c:

PS3: 
I find it hard to evaluate an interface without seeing its implementation. I think it would be better to remove everything in one commit, then gradually (re)implement the write-protect functionality in subsequent patches.

I imagine the reason to go with this approach is to minimize changes in cli_classic.c code, especially if the CLI remains the same. I understand that removing and re-adding the CLI code is cumbersome, but I don't think it's that much effort to do.

I'd like to know what others think about this.