On Thu, 21 Feb 2019, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> writes:
Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes:
QOMification left parameter @size unused in pflash_cfi01_register()
and pflash_cfi02_register(). register(). Obviously, @size should
match @sector_len and @nb_blocs, i.e. size == sector_len * nb_blocs.
All callers satisfy this.
Remove @nb_blocs and compute it from @size and @sector_len.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
---
[...]
diff --git a/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c b/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c
index a989a8c439..a5dae67c26 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/sam460ex.c
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ static int sam460ex_load_uboot(void)
if (!pflash_cfi01_register(FLASH_BASE | ((hwaddr)FLASH_BASE_H << 32),
"sam460ex.flash", FLASH_SIZE,
dinfo ? blk_by_legacy_dinfo(dinfo) : NULL,
- 65536, FLASH_SIZE / 65536,
+ 65536,
64 * KiB?
I generally prefer to keep big, repetitive patches as mechanical as
possible. But if it's desired, I'll make this change.
Zoltan, David, David, you're maintainers, do you have a preference?
For the sam460ex, this is 64 * KiB now before your patches which matches
other similar numbers in this file. I've already said I prefer to keep it
as 64 * KiB in reply to your [PATCH 04/10] which changed it and you've
agreed to that a few days ago. If you fix that patch (04/10) this one
remains mechanical.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
1, 0x89, 0x18, 0x0000, 0x0, 1)) {
error_report("Error registering flash memory");
/* XXX: return an error instead? */
[...]
Otherwise:
Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org>
Thanks!
