Skip to content

Conversation

@ALTracer
Copy link
Contributor

  • Both assert conditions are true due to all respective calls in target_flash.c being flash->write(..., flash->writesize) (that's 8 bytes) or flash->erase(..., flash->blocksize) (that's 1024 byte blocks)
  • This also should restore CI to passing status (for swlink/bluepill which overflow first)
  • Not touching any other refactoring opportunities in here for now (like mixed usage of DEBUG_INFO/TARGET and string deduplication for calloc failed for... or new mass_erase).

See #1900 for additional explanations.

Your checklist for this pull request

Closing issues

* Both conditions are true due to all calls in target_flash.c being
  `flash->write(..., flash->writesize)` or
  `flash->erase(..., flash->blocksize)`
Copy link
Member

@dragonmux dragonmux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, merging. Thank you for the contribution!

@dragonmux dragonmux added this to the v2.0 release milestone Nov 15, 2024
@dragonmux dragonmux added the Enhancement General project improvement label Nov 15, 2024
@dragonmux dragonmux merged commit 234947d into blackmagic-debug:main Nov 15, 2024
36 checks passed
@ALTracer ALTracer deleted the fix/mspm0-assert branch March 30, 2025 19:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Enhancement General project improvement

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants