Dne Pá 18. prosince 2009 06:11:23 Dean Glazeski napsal(a): > Sorry, I took another look and saw what you were talking about and how to > correct for it. Here's another version that addresses that issue. > > // Dean Glazeski > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Dean Glazeski <dngl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Oh, I didn't see that. This patch can be ignored then. It just looks so > > similar :). > > > > // Dean Glazeski > > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:29 PM, David Brownell <davi...@pacbell.net>wrote: > >> On Tuesday 15 December 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote: > >> > I noticed the NAND erase function was doing page command stuff, so I > >> > >> pulled > >> > >> > the redundant code out. Patch is attached > >> > >> This doesn't look right. Consider the 16 Gbit large page chip > >> I happen to have on some boards here: > >> > >> - read/write of 2KB page uses 5 byte addressing > >> - erase of 128KB block uses 3 byte addressping > >> > >> You're making both use the 5 byte addressing ... basically, if > >> this is going to be shared, the erase commands shouldn't be > >> writing column addresses, just row addresses. > >> > >> - Dave >
Why are you incrementing the timeout from 100 to 1000 in the nand_page_command ? btw. please stop top-posting. _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
