[flashrom] [PATCH] Clean up action parameter handling

[Nate Case]

> Carl-Daniel is going on vacation tomorrow and won't be readily available
> for at least a week. Also, we have a very bad history of merging
> patches (not only foreign ones, or own too). So, if you don't hear
> anything from him soonish, I suggest you either implement my proposition
> (I believe that has a good probability of getting merged, apart from
> some name bikeshedding), or continue with what you have so far and be
> prepared to adapt your changes later. After all, your changes so far
> are not that bold and have a relatively limited extent. That should not
> cause to many troubles if changed later.

I decided to implement your proposal since I think it's cleaner;  I just
submitted that as v2 a few minutes ago.  Feel free to bikeshed to your
heart's content.
 
> I am interested in hearing more about your further plans. We had
> patches for a few related functionalities (e.g. setting the status
> register of SPI flashes manually) and google is using a very extended
> CLI for unlocking address ranges of flash chips that you might want to
> look at first.

The most immediate need was to add an option to bypass the
check_erased_range() call in erase_and_write_block_helper() to speed up
erases.  Supposedly it reduced erase times from ~13 minutes to ~3 minutes.
I don't know if this is a great idea or not since I had little to do with
it;  I just saw it in an internal svn branch where they implemented it
by adding an ugly "erase_check" argument in addition to read_it, write_it,
etc.

Thanks,

Nate