On 08.01.2009 18:04, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 08.01.2009 18:01, Peter Stuge wrote:
Myles Watson wrote:
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ .page_size = 256, .tested = TEST_OK_PREW, .probe = probe_spi_rdid,
.erase = spi_chip_erase_c7,
.erase = spi_chip_erase_60_c7,It's surprising to change this one since it was tested OK. Shouldn't you mark it TEST_UNTESTED now or TEST_OK_PRW?
Thanks for catching that. Please revert this hunk.
Sure, will do. Thanks Myles!
Per the discussion with Peter, that hunk will stay as is unless anyone objects to the reason below: The new erase function calls the old erase function and if that fails it will call an alternative erase function. Worst case: The new function behaves like the old function. Best case: The new function works even if the old function fails due to chipset constraints.
Regards, Carl-Daniel