+def _r2_enter_programming_mode(radio):
+    serial = radio.pipe
+
+    magic = "TYOGRAM"
+    exito = False
+    serial.write(CMD_STX)
+    for i in range(0, 5):
+        for j in range(0, len(magic)):
+            serial.write(magic[j])
+        ack = serial.read(1)
+
+        try:
+            if ack == CMD_ACK:
+                exito = True
+                break
+        except:
+            LOG.debug("Attempt #%s, failed, trying again" % i)
+            pass

I don't think there's anything in this try..except block that can raise, so I would just remove it.

+
+    # check if we had EXITO
+    if exito is False:
+        msg = "The radio did not accept program mode after five tries.\n"
+        msg += "Check you interface cable and power cycle your radio."
+        raise errors.RadioError(msg)
+
+    try:
+        serial.write(CMD_STX)
+        ident = serial.read(8)
+    except:
+        _r2_exit_programming_mode(radio)
+        raise errors.RadioError("Error communicating with radio")
+
+    # No idea yet what the next 7 bytes stand for
+    # as long as they start with ACK we are fine
+    if not ident.startswith(CMD_ACK):
+        _r2_exit_programming_mode(radio)
+        LOG.debug(util.hexprint(ident))
+        raise errors.RadioError("Radio returned unknown identification string")
+
+    try:
+        serial.write(CMD_ACK)
+        ack = serial.read(1)
+    except:
+        _r2_exit_programming_mode(radio)

It would probably be best to wrap this function in something that always tries to exit programming mode if it raises so you don't need to have it on all the exit paths. Something like

  def _r2_enter_programming_mode(radio):
      try:
          return _really_enter(radio)
      except:
          _r2_exit_programming_mode(radio)
          raise  # will re-raise the original error

diff --git a/tests/images/Radioddity_R2.img b/tests/images/Radioddity_R2.img
new file mode 100644
index e69de29bb2d1d6434b8b29ae775ad8c2e48c5391..0bbd8468beda1c4f90b1be24385a530da662c710
GIT binary patch
literal 1181
zc%1Ez&1!={6h>{KK0}w?WS`nva2dQPBZPt>@n<!o1T$({X*&e7>$=OlXCI;V-kDit
z({&-2bHM92&WGwGK%o<kLT4@qQt#@PBS7kXcFz$YO&)RtNRw|k0;I`z90AhgpBw?w
z<R^{*X>wN}K-zwR0BQRL0;KI12#~g4AVAuFfdFay1p=h)7wYW)FLRmyG+#H4>p0W3
zUVi>QpL%zCoT=W)x8Ymv8|P{}CSIBOUG>1^vs}paKI%jkbY<Mnw=4F}!sMg!(!L7W
z6F#q&Qon0O+>dn>cx9d(@w{T~Ys1=wT8@v0GTwMh9vb$Nv{f7(>(P8$Wa)r+bs|sw
Vb!+!g-{%#1G8CCV*Z0UI_yseAoGAbR

This looks like maybe you committed the image in a previous changeset and then just tweaked it in this one? Either add it in the same patch, or you can attach it to the issue you create and I can snag it from there.

Also, I know you said you were having trouble running the style checks on windows, so I have included the output of it for you at the end here.

Otherwise this looks really close, thanks! I'd like to get the image so I can run the tests and get as much of the style and other nits above cleaned up and then I'm good with it.