When (un)protecting a flash sector with the CFI flash driver a trace
"protect 0x..." is generated, independently of the type of operation. This is
misleading in case of an unprotect. Tell the truth when unprotecting a sector.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <matthias@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/nor/cfi_flash.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/nor/cfi_flash.c b/drivers/nor/cfi_flash.c
index 37206d0..938e2cb 100644
--- a/drivers/nor/cfi_flash.c
+++ b/drivers/nor/cfi_flash.c
@@ -380,7 +380,8 @@ static int cfi_protect(struct cdev *cdev, size_t count, unsigned long offset, in
unsigned long start, end;
int i, ret = 0;
- debug("%s: protect 0x%08x (size %d)\n", __FUNCTION__, offset, count);
+ debug("%s: %sprotect 0x%08x (size %d)\n",
+ __FUNCTION__, (prot? "" : "un"), offset, count);
start = flash_find_sector(finfo, cdev->dev->map_base + offset);
end = flash_find_sector(finfo, cdev->dev->map_base + offset + count - 1);
--
1.6.3.1
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
