On Sun, 13 Apr 2014, Marek Vasut wrote:
> 
> This portion of code looks like a duplicate of ...
> 
> > +	for (lock_bits = 1; lock_bits < 7; lock_bits++) {
> > +		protected_area_start = flash->mtd.size -
> > +					get_protected_area(flash, lock_bits);
> > +		if (offset+len >= protected_area_start)
> > +			break;
> > +	}
> > +	lock_bits--;
> > +
> > +	status_new = (status_old & ~SR_BP_BIT_MASK) |
> > +			((lock_bits << SR_BP_BIT_OFFSET) & SR_BP_BIT_MASK);
> 
> ... this here (if you don't consider the lock_bits--) . Why don't we move this 
> into a separate function to avoid the duplication?
> 

Thanks for reviewing this patch Marek, your suggestions were very 
helpful. I am about to post another version that 
hopefully addresses the issues raised, I would appreciate if you can take 
another look at it.

Cheers,
Austin.