On 23.09.2009 15:28, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 02:11:27PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 23.09.2009 13:44, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
Can we not consider E as tested here? I believe you got ulf to test both, and with the board enable, even the 64k block erase succeeded.
Well, I didn't have him test the erase functions inside the new eraseblock framework, I only used the old framework. The effect (comands executed) should be identical, though. If you think that is good enough, I'll resend without the PRW change for this chip, but with the added definition of PRW (I need that one for a boatload of other eraseblock changes).
Ok, with just that one change: Acked-by: Luc Verhaegen libv@skynet.be
Thanks, changed and committed in r731.
Also, we might want to have Ulf test this if you are still not entirely sure about this code.
I'm sure about the code. The additional test was just in case we want paranoid checks.
Regards, Carl-Daniel