On 02/14/19 23:38, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>
>> On 02/14/19 16:57, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>> It looks like there was going to be code to check we had some sort of
>>> alignment so lets replace it with an actual check. This is a bit more
>>> useful than the enigmatic "failed to
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:38:35PM +, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek writes:
> > On 02/14/19 16:57, Alex Bennée wrote:
> >> +/*
> >> + * Validate the backing store is the right size for pflash
> >> + * devices. It has to be padded to a multiple of the flash block
> >> + *
Alex Bennée writes:
> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>
>> On 02/14/19 16:57, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>> It looks like there was going to be code to check we had some sort of
>>> alignment so lets replace it with an actual check. This is a bit more
>>> useful than the enigmatic "failed to read the initial
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> On 02/14/19 16:57, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> It looks like there was going to be code to check we had some sort of
>> alignment so lets replace it with an actual check. This is a bit more
>> useful than the enigmatic "failed to read the initial flash content"
>> when we
On 02/14/19 16:57, Alex Bennée wrote:
> It looks like there was going to be code to check we had some sort of
> alignment so lets replace it with an actual check. This is a bit more
> useful than the enigmatic "failed to read the initial flash content"
> when we attempt to read the number of bytes
It looks like there was going to be code to check we had some sort of
alignment so lets replace it with an actual check. This is a bit more
useful than the enigmatic "failed to read the initial flash content"
when we attempt to read the number of bytes the device should have.
This is a potential
