On 26 August 2018 at 01:48, Joel Stanley <j...@jms.id.au> wrote: > I agree that it would be neater to do this. I didn't as the flash is > part of the NRF51822 SoC, opposed to some external flash that is on > the microbit board and connected to the SoC. This is mentioned in the > comment at the start of the file: > > /* > * The size and base is for the NRF51822 part. If other parts > * are supported in the future, add a sub-class of NRF51SoC for > * the specific variants > */
Oh, right. I'd assumed it wasn't fixed because it was specified as a property on the object. > What would you prefer we do here? I don't see anything that seems like the really obvious clean thing, so I suggest just doing something that seems reasonable. I think Steffen's patchset also had a change in this area, which might affect the decision. thanks -- PMM
