On Tuesday 09 March 2010, David Brownell wrote: And tl clarify a bit:
> On Monday 08 March 2010, Antonio Borneo wrote: > > Cannot protect or unprotect single sector in cfi flash. > > When first==last the procedure fails. > > > > Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <[email protected]> > > --- > > src/flash/nor/core.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/src/flash/nor/core.c b/src/flash/nor/core.c > > index 767006d..8b581b0 100644 > > --- a/src/flash/nor/core.c > > +++ b/src/flash/nor/core.c > > @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ int flash_driver_protect(struct flash_bank *bank, int > > set, int first, int last) > > * speeds at least some things up. > > */ > > scan: > > - for (int i = first; i < last; i++) { > > + for (int i = first; i <= last; i++) { > > OK ... because "first == last" is an OK loop entry state; it was explicitly allowed in the procedure parameter checks earlier, indicating that "single sector" case. > > > struct flash_sector *sector = bank->sectors + i; > > > > /* Only filter requests to protect the already-protected, or > > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ scan: > > } > > > > /* Single sector, already protected? Nothing to do! */ > > - if (first == last) > > + if (first > last) > > ... not. the loop previously maintained the "first <= last" invariant, > and should still have done so. "first > last" is clearly an error case. ... "clearly" since the procedure parameter checks rejected that error. Also, - a comment in the loop pointed out the importance of not overrunning the end - the comment up top says "first == last" is the "single sector" case In short, this would add three internal inconsistencies... > > > > return ERROR_OK; > > > > > > -- > > 1.5.2.2 _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
