Hello Dean,
Friday, December 18, 2009, 10:00:16 PM, you wrote:
DG> Alright, GMail was putting my signature above the quoted email
DG> because of a lab thing I had enabled. It is now disabled so I
DG> should start to put my responses in a better place. I took a look
DG> at the archives and it is
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:48 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
>
> On Friday 18 December 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote:
> > By
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
On Friday 18 December 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote:
> By the way, what is top-posting and how do I stop?
When you trim down the
Dne Pá 18. prosince 2009 16:02:35 Dean Glazeski napsal(a):
> The increase happens because the NAND erase function was using 1000 for a
> timeout so I just increased the general timeout to that amount. I don't
> think it should be a big deal because the timeout shouldn't happen
> normally.
>
> By
The increase happens because the NAND erase function was using 1000 for a
timeout so I just increased the general timeout to that amount. I don't
think it should be a big deal because the timeout shouldn't happen normally.
By the way, what is top-posting and how do I stop?
// Dean Glazeski
On
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 wrote:
> > Oh, I di
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 wrote:
> Oh, I didn't see that. This patch can be ignored then. It just looks so
> sim
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 wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 December 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote:
> > I noticed the NAND erase function was doing page command stuff, so I
> pulled
>
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 pa
I noticed the NAND erase function was doing page command stuff, so I pulled
the redundant code out. Patch is attached
// Dean Glazeski
From 2bb284a568f936f47e2a638e80c1554f94f5e860 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dean Glazeski
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:57:18 -0600
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Use NAND pa
10 matches
Mail list logo
