On 11 November 2015 at 20:51, Fabio Estevam <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Fabio Estevam <[email protected]> > > In the case of lock operations not being supported, we should better let > the user know instead of failing silently. > > Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam <[email protected]> > --- > include/spi_flash.h | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/spi_flash.h b/include/spi_flash.h > index 0ae0062..ff51c50 100644 > --- a/include/spi_flash.h > +++ b/include/spi_flash.h > @@ -237,8 +237,10 @@ static inline int spi_flash_erase(struct spi_flash > *flash, u32 offset, > static inline int spi_flash_protect(struct spi_flash *flash, u32 ofs, u32 > len, > bool prot) > { > - if (!flash->flash_lock) > + if (!flash->flash_lock) { > + printf("Protect operation not supported for this flash\n"); > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + }
Here it's not required, it's better to print the protected area in cmd_sf itself similar way as mtd_utils flash_lock thanks! -- Jagan | openedev. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
