From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 08:16:32 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] cfi_flash: Fix unaligned accesses to
 cfi_qry structure
In-Reply-To: <20130522205023.60b4cfef@lilith>
References: <1368552472-12931-1-git-send-email-andrew_gabbasov@mentor.com>
	<20130522205023.60b4cfef@lilith>
Message-ID: <519DB440.3050206@denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Albert,

On 05/22/2013 08:50 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:

<snip>

>> @@ -148,10 +152,10 @@ struct cfi_qry {
>>  	u8	block_erase_timeout_max;
>>  	u8	chip_erase_timeout_max;
>>  	u8	dev_size;
>> -	u16	interface_desc;
>> -	u16	max_buf_write_size;
>> +	u16	interface_desc;		/* aligned */
>> +	u16	max_buf_write_size;	/* aligned */
>>  	u8	num_erase_regions;
>> -	u32	erase_region_info[NUM_ERASE_REGIONS];
>> +	u32	erase_region_info[NUM_ERASE_REGIONS];	/* unaligned */
>>  } __attribute__((packed));
>>  
>>  struct cfi_pri_hdr {
> 
> Reviewed-By: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
> 
> Seems ok to me.
> 
> Now, seeing as this is global to all architectures, yet motivated by
> ARM alignment considerations, which repo should this go to?

I'm responsible for cfi-flash. I'll look at it today.

Thanks,
Stefan