BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu> writes: > 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.
You're 100% right. I failed to recall that detail from previous review when I wrote the reply above. Thanks!
