I think I get what you were saying earlier... I don't know if it's worth blocking this patch, though. If you have time to implement the better approach by all means do so and I'll be happy to review it. I can take a swing at it too, but I probably won't get around to it for another month.
1 comment:
Patch Set #5, Line 380: return -1;
I'm talking about the block erase commands. If the core read/erase/write […]
I'm not sure what the best solution will look like exactly... It seems sensible to build/maintain separate lists of commands that the chip and programmer support. The chips already do that, so it might not be much more effort to have the programmers do so. Most programmers won't be affected, but it makes sense to do it and also helps keep error handling tidy.
To view, visit change 22421. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.