Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Factor out lock functions (print, unlock, lock)

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Hi Edward,

On 21.10.2009 11:49, Edward O'Callaghan wrote:
> Just a small/quick review, You have a extra "," at the end of your enum list.

Thanks for the review. The usual flashrom coding style has one extra
comma at the end of each array initializer to make extending the
initializer easier (no need to patch in the comma at the old last
entry), but in this case we only want three states, so your point is valid.
I'll probably change it, but I'd appreciate more input. Is a simpler
coding style (comma everywhere) or a more complicated coding style with
improved correctness (comma only where it makes sense) better?
> 2009/10/20 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger :
> > --- flashrom-lock_refactor/flash.h      (Revision 751)
> > +++ flashrom-lock_refactor/flash.h      (Arbeitskopie)
> > @@ -175,6 +175,12 @@
> >        CHIP_BUSTYPE_UNKNOWN    = CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL | CHIP_BUSTYPE_LPC | CHIP_BUSTYPE_FWH | CHIP_BUSTYPE_SPI,
> >  };
> >
> > +enum lockaction {
> >   lock_print,
> >   lock_disable,
> >   lock_enable,
> >
> > +};
> >
> > /*
> > How many different contiguous runs of erase blocks with one size each do
> > we have for a given erase function?

Regards,
Carl-Daniel