[U-Boot-Users] FIX: dataflash.c

[Ulf Samuelsson <ulf@atmel.com>]

>>> --- drivers/dataflash.c.orig 2007-08-18 17:36:08.000000000 +0200
>>> +++ drivers/dataflash.c 2007-08-18 17:37:05.000000000 +0200
>>> @@ -27,16 +27,16 @@ AT91S_DATAFLASH_INFO dataflash_info[CFG_
>>>  static AT91S_DataFlash DataFlashInst;
>>>  
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_AT91SAM9260EK
>>> -int cs[][CFG_MAX_DATAFLASH_BANKS] = {
>>> +int cs[][2] = {
>>>  {CFG_DATAFLASH_LOGIC_ADDR_CS0, 0}, /* Logical adress, CS */
>>>  {CFG_DATAFLASH_LOGIC_ADDR_CS1, 1}
>>>  };
>>>  #elif defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9263EK)
>>> -int cs[][CFG_MAX_DATAFLASH_BANKS] = {
>>> +int cs[][2] = {
>>>  {CFG_DATAFLASH_LOGIC_ADDR_CS0, 0} /* Logical adress, CS */
>>>  };
>>>  #else
>>> -int cs[][CFG_MAX_DATAFLASH_BANKS] = {
>>> +int cs[][2] = {
>>>  {CFG_DATAFLASH_LOGIC_ADDR_CS0, 0}, /* Logical adress, CS */
>>>  {CFG_DATAFLASH_LOGIC_ADDR_CS3, 3}
>>>  };
>>>     
>>
>> I hereby reject this patch.
>>
>> Replacing a configuration option by a hardwired constant which is
>> probably wrong on most of the boards is definitely a Bad Thing.
>>   
> The length of the array row is fixed and it is two... It can't be different.
> 

Yes, but that means that you leave the config/*.h info dangling.
With the current code you can see how many dataflash are supported.

I agree with Wolfgang (wow, that is an experience!) that the patch should be rejected.

Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson