Is the declared and initialized variable chipnr used otherwise ? (seen since
4.4.104)
If not, how would that make a difference ?
Regards,
Paul
> Op 19 dec. 2017, om 23:26 heeft Hauke Mehrtens <ha...@hauke-m.de> het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> On 12/17/2017 06:56 PM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 17 Dec 2017, at 17:22, Etienne Haarsma <bladeoner...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> uint8_t *oob = ops->oobbuf;
>>> uint8_t *buf = ops->datbuf;
>>> -@@ -2662,7 +2697,7 @@ err_out:
>>> - static int panic_nand_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len,
>>> - size_t *retlen, const uint8_t *buf)
>>> - {
>>> -- struct nand_chip *chip = mtd->priv;
>>> -+ struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
>>> - struct mtd_oob_ops ops;
>>> - int ret;
>>> -
>>
>> I’m unconvinced this is the correct thing to do - in essence just dropping
>> that bit of the patch. Will panic to nand still work?
>>
>> Kevin
>>
> Hi,
>
> I agree, the correct part should look like this:
>
> @@ -2512,10 +2512,10 @@ Signed-off-by: John Crispin <blo...@openwrt.org>
> {
> - struct nand_chip *chip = mtd->priv;
> + struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
> + int chipnr = (int)(to >> chip->chip_shift);
> struct mtd_oob_ops ops;
> int ret;
> -
> -@@ -2722,15 +2757,12 @@ static int nand_do_write_oob(struct mtd_
>
> @Etienne will you send a new version.
>
> Hauke
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lede-dev mailing list
> Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
