Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/10] pflash: Clean up after commit 368a354f02b part 2

[Markus Armbruster]

BALATON Zoltan <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Alex Bennée <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> 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 <address@hidden>
>>>> ---
>> [...]
>>>> 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!