Fix functionality for FlashIAPBD & SlicingBD #10108
Conversation
Due to discovery of inconsistent sector sizes in devices storage the is_valid_erase function was adjusted, For FlashIAPBD the 'code size' was included to the calculation, preventing faulty "virtual" addresses calculation. For SlicingBD the same error was fixed and in all 3 validation functions that sent addresses for validation and program/read/erase different addresses.
|
@theamirocohen, thank you for your changes. |
|
This is a fix adding new functionality, marked for 5.13rc1 |
Hi @0xc0170, this pull request doesn't add new functionality, it just implement class functions. |
|
@0xc0170, this is definitely a bug fix. The FlashIAP and Slicing block devices currently use wrong logic to decide whether the input parameters for erase/read/write APIs are valid or not. This PR fixes that logic. |
|
Thanks for the details! @dannybenor Please approve and confirm the intention having this in the patch release. |
| @@ -256,4 +256,13 @@ const char *FlashIAPBlockDevice::get_type() const | |||
| return "FLASHIAP"; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| bool FlashIAPBlockDevice::is_valid_erase(bd_addr_t addr, bd_size_t size) const | |||
| { | |||
| bd_addr_t base_addr = addr + (_base - _flash.get_flash_start()); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add a comment saying what is base_addr and that it is related to the full flash, not only the addresses inside the blockdevice
|
CI started. Would like to see this come into RC3 is possible (@ARmmbed/mbed-os-maintainers) |
Test run: SUCCESSSummary: 13 of 13 test jobs passed |
Description
Due to discovery of inconsistent sector sizes in devices storage the is_valid_erase function was adjusted,
For FlashIAPBD the 'code size' was included to the calculation, preventing faulty "virtual" addresses calculation.
For SlicingBD the same error was fixed and in all 3 validation functions that sent addresses for validation and program/read/erase different addresses.
Pull request type
Reviewers
@ARMmbed/mbed-os-storage
@geky