On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 21:46:22 +0530 > Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 05:54:21PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 20:49:54 +0530 > > > Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > @@ -565,6 +608,11 @@ static int nand_block_isreserved(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs) > > > > > > > > if (!chip->bbt) > > > > return 0; > > > > + > > > > + /* Check if the region is secured */ > > > > + if (nand_region_is_secured(chip, ofs, 0)) > > > > + return -EIO; > > > > > > That would is still wrong, you should never pass a 0 size to > > > nand_region_is_secured(). > > > > > > > Size doesn't matter here, that's why I passed 0. Maybe 1 would be > > appropriate? > > You're checking if a block is reserved, so I think passing the > eraseblock size would make more sense, but I actually don't understand > why you need to check if the region is secure here (looks like > nand_block_isreserved() does not access the flash). > Ah yes indeed, brain fade... Thanks, Mani
