On Thursday, March 13, 2014 at 06:31:03 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
Hello Marek,
Am 12.03.2014 12:43, schrieb Marek Vasut:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 at 11:01:19 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
move the flushing code into an extra function dfu_flush(), so it can be used from other code.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocherhs@denx.de Cc: Lukasz Majewskil.majewski@samsung.com Cc: Kyungmin Parkkyungmin.park@samsung.com Cc: Marek Vasutmarex@denx.de
drivers/dfu/dfu.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- include/dfu.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dfu/dfu.c b/drivers/dfu/dfu.c index 56e69fd..193e047 100644 --- a/drivers/dfu/dfu.c +++ b/drivers/dfu/dfu.c @@ -127,6 +127,31 @@ static int dfu_write_buffer_drain(struct dfu_entity *dfu) return ret;
}
+int dfu_flush(struct dfu_entity *dfu, void *buf, int size, int blk_seq_num) +{
- int ret = 0;
- /* end? */
What does this comment mean ? I don't understand it ...
Comes from original code... Thinking about it, it seems better to let this comment and the below "if" in the dfu_write function...
- if (size == 0) {
You can check this like so:
if (size)
return;
... as when moving this "if" back to dfu_write(), this "if" kindly disappears in the patch 2/3 of this series, as calling dfu_flush() is only in the new dfuMANIFEST state necessary, which is called at the end of the dfu transfer, so no need for checking, if end of size is reached!
OK, this makes sense. Thanks for pointing this out.