On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 9:22 PM Stanislav Bolshakov <stanislav.bolsha...@synopsys.com> wrote: > > In accordance with the name of the function 'flash_is_unlocked()', > it is implied that the return value will be either 'true' or 'false'. > Moreover, calling this function from other parts of the program is > based precisely on this fact. The value of the pointer to the actual > called function 'flash_is_unlocked()' depends on the memory manufacturer > and can be stm_is_unlocked() or sst26_is_unlocked(). These two > functions have inconsistent return values. This patch fixes this > inconsistency.
Missing s-o-b