When (un)protecting a flash sector with the new 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_new.c | 4 +++-
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/nor/cfi_flash_new.c b/drivers/nor/cfi_flash_new.c
index c9910ed..d85e0be 100644
--- a/drivers/nor/cfi_flash_new.c
+++ b/drivers/nor/cfi_flash_new.c
@@ -664,8 +664,10 @@ static int cfi_protect(struct cdev *cdev, size_t count, unsigned long offset, in
flash_info_t *finfo = (flash_info_t *)cdev->priv;
unsigned long start, end;
int i, ret = 0;
+ const char *action = (prot? "protect" : "unprotect");
- printf("%s: protect 0x%08x (size %d)\n", __FUNCTION__, cdev->dev->map_base + offset, count);
+ printf("%s: %s 0x%08x (size %d)\n", __FUNCTION__,
+ action, cdev->dev->map_base + offset, count);
start = find_sector(finfo, cdev->dev->map_base + offset);
end = 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
