Initial flash support, empty code structure

[antmak]

Initial code structure for SPI Flash support

• adds target/common code structure
• adds empty code structure for SPI Flash support for all targets

[github-actions]

	Messages
📖	🎉 Good Job! All checks are passing!

👋 Hello antmak, we appreciate your contribution to this project!

---

Click to see more instructions ...

This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...

We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests.

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against f54ee9e

[erhankur]

@antmak new structure LGTM.

We are still having internal discussions regarding the use of esp_flash APIs, so I haven't looked into the flash implementation in detail yet. A few notes:

• Please fix the build errors before the review process. I usually build and run each PR.
• We should maintain consistency in Doxygen comments. Some functions have them, others don't.
• In general, the flash code looks messy due to the trace logs. I understand you'll remove them soon. It's ok for now.
• As you mentioned in the comments, we should avoid increasing the .rodata section size of the library. You can start by introducing new error codes instead. Otherwise, we're accumulating technical debt from the beginning.
• I would prefer to see JIRA ticket IDs created for the TODOs.

[antmak]

@erhankur PTAL

I did not add much implementation details here to make it easier to review the code structure

Doxygen

I sorted out comments, paid attention to return values.

error codes

Iinitial return codes have been add. Other changes being made on OOCD side. Split to #22

[erhankur]

@antmak Some minor comments. New common folder LGTM