On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 05:35:02PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On 29 January 2016 at 16:25, Brian Norris wrote:
> > Some flash support a bit in the status register that inverts protection
> > so that it applies to the bottom of the flash, not the top. This yields
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 05:35:02PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On 29 January 2016 at 16:25, Brian Norris wrote:
> > Some flash support a bit in the status register that inverts protection
> > so that it applies to the bottom of the flash, not the top. This yields
> > additions to the
Hi Brian,
On 29 January 2016 at 16:25, Brian Norris wrote:
> Some flash support a bit in the status register that inverts protection
> so that it applies to the bottom of the flash, not the top. This yields
> additions to the protection range table, as noted in the
Hi Brian,
On 29 January 2016 at 16:25, Brian Norris wrote:
> Some flash support a bit in the status register that inverts protection
> so that it applies to the bottom of the flash, not the top. This yields
> additions to the protection range table, as noted in the comments.
>
> Because this
Some flash support a bit in the status register that inverts protection
so that it applies to the bottom of the flash, not the top. This yields
additions to the protection range table, as noted in the comments.
Because this feature is not universal to all flash that support
lock/unlock, control
Some flash support a bit in the status register that inverts protection
so that it applies to the bottom of the flash, not the top. This yields
additions to the protection range table, as noted in the comments.
Because this feature is not universal to all flash that support
lock/unlock, control
6 matches
Mail list logo