On 31.12.2007 00:57, Corey Osgood wrote:
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 30.12.2007 13:15, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 30.12.2007 05:40, Corey Osgood wrote:
doesn't seem quite right, but it might be (yes, I realize it means 4x more IDs). We also break the ability to use IMT flash chips (which someone may, eventually...). The other things is, if it should be a while loop, why isn't it?
Oh, I had not seen the IMT entry in flash.h. It is obviously wrong. With the current code, at least EON and IMT will collide, and neither have a real vendor ID of 0x7f. I'll dig out the real IMT vendor ID.
Patch to fix the IMT entry sent to the list. I hope this addresses your concerns.
In that case:
Acked-by: Corey Osgood firstname.lastname@example.org