1. 06 6月, 2009 1 次提交
  2. 08 5月, 2009 1 次提交
  3. 29 4月, 2009 1 次提交
    • S
      mtd: Bug in m25p80.c during whole-chip erase · 3f33b0aa
      Steven A. Falco 提交于
      There is a logic error in "whole chip erase" for the m25p80 family.  If
      the whole device is successfully erased, erase_chip() will return 0, and
      the code will fall through to the "else" clause, and do sector-by-sector
      erase in addition to the whole-chip erase.  This patch corrects that.
      
      Also, the MAX_READY_WAIT_COUNT is insufficient for an m25p16 connected
      to a 400 MHz powerpc.  Increasing it allows me to successfully program
      the device on my board.
      Signed-off-by: NSteven A. Falco <sfalco@harris.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
      3f33b0aa
  4. 04 4月, 2009 1 次提交
  5. 24 3月, 2009 1 次提交
  6. 20 3月, 2009 2 次提交
  7. 13 3月, 2009 1 次提交
  8. 11 3月, 2009 1 次提交
  9. 19 1月, 2009 1 次提交
  10. 08 1月, 2009 7 次提交
  11. 07 1月, 2009 1 次提交
  12. 06 1月, 2009 1 次提交
  13. 23 12月, 2008 1 次提交
  14. 20 12月, 2008 2 次提交
  15. 10 12月, 2008 1 次提交
  16. 26 11月, 2008 3 次提交
  17. 21 10月, 2008 1 次提交
  18. 20 10月, 2008 1 次提交
  19. 14 10月, 2008 1 次提交
  20. 12 8月, 2008 3 次提交
  21. 07 8月, 2008 2 次提交
  22. 02 8月, 2008 1 次提交
  23. 30 7月, 2008 1 次提交
    • A
      [MTD] DataFlash: bugfix, binary page sizes now handled · 771999b6
      akpm@linux-foundation.org 提交于
      The wrong version of the "teach dataflash about binary density" patch
      just got merged (v2 not v3) ... this restores the missing updates:
      
        * Fix the cmdlinepart *regression* that caused testing failures (!!)
          by restoring the original part labels in relevant cases.
      
        * Don't reference things that don't exist (!)
      	- An opcode that doesn't even exist for DataFlash
      	- The part is "at45db642" not "at45db641"
      	- ID zero in this JEDEC table
      
        * Make the JEDEC probe routine report and handle errors better:
      	- If the SPI calls fail, return the error codes.
      	- Don't depend on ordering of table entries.
      	- Unrecognized ids are different from parts that have no ID.
                We won't actually know how to handle them correctly; display
      	  the ID and ignore the chip.
      
        * Move the original block comment about the "legacy" chip ID scheme
          back next to the code to which it applies ... not next to the new
          JEDEC query code, which uses an entirely different strategy.
      
        * Don't print a guessed erasesize; /proc/mtd has the real value.
      
      And add a few more comments.
      Signed-off-by: NDavid Brownell <dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net>
      Cc: Bryan Wu <cooloney@kernel.org>
      Cc: Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@analog.com>
      Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
      771999b6
  24. 22 7月, 2008 1 次提交
  25. 12 7月, 2008 1 次提交
  26. 11 7月, 2008 1 次提交
  27. 06 6月, 2008 1 次提交