[flashrom] [PATCH 1/5] rayer_spi: Improve support for different pinouts

[Maksim Kuleshov]

> Thanks for your considerations regarding the name, that's a valid
> point. Using some consistent scheme to differentiate the various types
> is favorable, therefore using the model name instead of the company
> name generally speaking makes sense. Also, I consider breaking
> applications that use the CLI instead of libflashrom a good thing. We
> should do that more often so that either they get so annoyed that their
> authors review the libflashrom patches or annoy us back enough so that
> we eventually integrate libflashrom. This was somewhat sarcastic, but my
> main point is: the CLI should not be used by other programs. Regarding
> users... that's an excellent point because I am not sure how well the
> help texts (manpage and --L output) are after this change. Carl-Daniel?

Coercion, is always worse than the possible choices. To use the flashrom not need to be программистом. libflashrom requires C 	ABI compatibility. How to be with the integration of python, php, perl, ocaml, lisp, etc.? Who write for these language bindings, and will keep them up to date? A good practice in case of need to delete or change the name, is the creation of a new name as a synonym of the old, and the announcement of the old name as "deprecated".

> Signing off is about the code, not about testing or reviewing. It
> indicates that you were authorized to contribute that code under the
> given license to this project. And in this case Carl-Daniel implies
> with it general consent to what he has done with your code when refining
> the patches. I interpret your considerations regarding the type
> parameter as disagreement, but I might be wrong...

I will sign an agreement with the license for this patch.