flash: write_image will now pad erase to nearest sector

this is done for unlocking and it is a simple omission that
it wasn't done for sectors.

The unnerving thing is that nobody has complained about this
until now....

Signed-off-by: Øyvind Harboe <oyvind.harboe@zylin.com>

diff --git a/src/flash/nor/core.c b/src/flash/nor/core.c
index b8dda96b0f6ea3d50417351efd1c378aba927044..1ff41937f61912015bc210a597ce987a1ba9a0cf 100644 (file)
--- a/src/flash/nor/core.c
+++ b/src/flash/nor/core.c
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 /***************************************************************************
  *   Copyright (C) 2005 by Dominic Rath <Dominic.Rath@gmx.de>              *
- *   Copyright (C) 2007,2008 Øyvind Harboe <oyvind.harboe@zylin.com>       *
+ *   Copyright (C) 2007-2010 Øyvind Harboe <oyvind.harboe@zylin.com>       *
  *   Copyright (C) 2008 by Spencer Oliver <spen@spen-soft.co.uk>           *
  *   Copyright (C) 2009 Zachary T Welch <zw@superlucidity.net>             *
  *                                                                         *
@@ -519,12 +519,6 @@ int flash_write_unlock(struct target *target, struct image *image,
        struct flash_bank *c;
        int *padding;
 
-       /* REVISIT do_pad should perhaps just be another parameter.
-        * GDB wouldn't ever need it, since it erases separately.
-        * But "flash write_image" commands might want that option.
-        */
-       bool do_pad = false;
-
        section = 0;
        section_offset = 0;
 
@@ -694,7 +688,7 @@ int flash_write_unlock(struct target *target, struct image *image,
                        {
                                /* calculate and erase sectors */
                                retval = flash_erase_address_range(target,
-                                               do_pad, run_address, run_size);
+                                               true, run_address, run_size);
                        }
                }