fel-lib: Fix parsing scratchpad field #216
Merged
+1
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Field has 32 bits, not 16, as it is currently handled. This fixes scratchpad address print when using "sunxi-fel ver" command on A523. Before it printed "0x1500" and afterwards "0x61500", which makes much more sense and it was verified by BROM disassembly. Signed-off-by: Jernej Skrabec <[email protected]>
apritzel
approved these changes
Feb 10, 2025
Contributor
apritzel
left a comment
apritzel
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me, it's a uint32_t anyway, and indeed there are more than 16 significant bits on the A523.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Field has 32 bits, not 16, as it is currently handled. This fixes scratchpad address print when using "sunxi-fel ver" command on A523. Before it printed "0x1500" and afterwards "0x61500", which makes much more sense and it was verified by BROM disassembly.