On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se wrote:
ron minnich wrote:
It'll work in this case but the flash chip size can also be smaller than the last detected chip.
I'm not sure there is any harm in the smaller case.
Some chips are particular about the addresses that offsets are written to and e.g. block erase will not work properly.
Actually, I'm not that picky about the patch, but ... I doubt the flash chips themselves know or care. It's the chipsets (e.g. the sc520) that are the real trouble.
I am not sure why we have that test for flashbase anyway. What's it matter? Why do we use the old value for the next value?
ron